No it doesnt, its awesome, but why are there so many flames about linux. it seems kind of pointless, if you dont like linux, go back to windows and shut the hell up. Or make a forum section just for rants.

Grrr...you great dingus! I can't believe I opened this thread thinking "Oh, great! ANOTHER one of these FREAKS! I'm gonna ask the mods to close this thread due to the sheer stupid repetition!" Geez.

swatward, you might want to read my article:
Reverse elitism and the Linux Community.

That might explain why Linux debates are so heated.

I could say the same thing for the anti-windows mentality that a lot of linux users have, Its pointless and if you don't like it then stick with linux and shut the hell up. But where would the fun be in that?

Linux sucks because I can't get viruses and adware that screw up my entire system and hijack my browser. I mean where's the fun without all the problems that come with windows?

Windows free since Novmber 2004, and I have not missed it one time.


Debian zealot.

I understand you opened the thread with good intentions, but I might advise you into choosing a better title next time (I don´t think you can change the title, but I´m not sure). This way, one might think you are using the old trick of putting a flaming title just to get attention. You could have choosen: "Why there are so many flames about linux" or similar.

thanks,

Harishankar,

Please don't plaster links to your aritcles when you've already created a thread in regards to them. It seems lately you do like to link to your own personal site well too often when we usually don't allow such things, it's like indirect advertising to drive traffic to your site from this one, well at least that's how its starting to come off as in some cases.

If you disagree, email me, a moderator or the site admin to discuss.

Sorry trickykid I disagree. It's a relevant link trying to explain my point of view.

I usually hate repeating myself and I found that a good way to do this is to post the stuff in one place and link to it when questions are asked. I wanted people to know my point of view... nothing else. If more people read my article, probably there will be less flame wars. At least that is my motivation.

If it happens to be my website.... where else can I post my articles or essays or informative pieces?

That's the reason. I have no profit motive in driving traffic to my blog where I don't advertise in any case. I gain nothing out of more traffic. My only desire is to share my views and help spread some awareness on certain issues.

It's ridiculous to be accused of advertising... It's a relevant link, not a spam link to any profit-making site and the link was provided with good reason: to make a point and not keep copy/pasting the same arguments over and over again.

In any case, I will contact Jeremy and ask for his views on this.

Regards.

Well next time, why don't you just email me, another moderator or Jeremy directly like I had asked to discuss in my post instead of replying here which I did not want you to do. Personally I feel you link to your own site way too often, the reasoning I mentioned it in this thread.

I realize you don't have any motivation to profit from your site but so do the countless others who link to their site and we usually do the following: a) close their thread for advertising b) point out the rules to not link to their own sites and c) make them aware that even linking to non-profit sites they might own is still a form of advertising.

One of the many reasons I pointed this thread out was that you had already created a thread that links everyone to your article, which should be sufficient enough. If you don't want to keep repeating yourself, then ignore the thread and move on, it's not a requirement for you to link to your aritcle each and everytime this type of thread pops up, which is way too often.

So again, if you want to discuss, email as I'm done discussing it here in the forums and felt all members should be aware of when they might be crossing the lines of linking to their own site, our stance on it, etc.

Regards.

PS. I have my own domains and sites, never linking to them from this site in posts or threads as I find it a conflict of interest on the grounds of using this site to gain more traffic for my own sites.

If I may express my opinion here...

I found Harishankar's article extremely on-topic and interesting.
And as a matter of fact, I did not see any previous topic with links to his site before. I don't doubt those articles exist, but how could anyone be aware of all topics, when there are more than 100 new each hour!

As for ignoring the topic, I disagree. Imagine you're a Ferrari lover, and you spoke with your friends about the new Ferrari yesterday. Now today at work your colleagues are speaking about this new Ferrari too; wouldn't you want to join? Of course you would! Even if that means repeating some of yesterday's discussion.
When you're interested in a subject, you're just bound to reply. And often, you feel you HAVE to reply, else you'd feel as if you were passing by a fellow dying of thirst, without giving him some of your water.
And this doesn't mean that we have to like repeating ourselves (typing again I mean).

Now the most knowledgable of us have set down on web pages some of their knowledge for the benefit of all. That alone proves one's interest in the covered subjects. I'm one such person, and Harishankar is another. And both of us, with countless others, have nothing at all to gain from any visitor.
So the rules state that we're allowed to make links to Google results, or pclinuxonline, or alistapart, or any other, but NOT to articles we're written ourselves. Do we have to ask someone else to do the replies? Do we have to create multiple identities? I hope not, and that's not a choice I did.
This "advertisement" matter is a serious flaw in the LQ guidelines. I had the same problem Harishankar had, and I think this "advertisement" problem should be refined or at least discussed.

I thank Harishankar for (inadvertently I'm sure) bringing the subject up by not using PM or mail. And if that means closing my account, so be it. I'm here mainly for helping others, that's all. Now if my help is not good enough for you...

Yves.

It's not the point I've made. Harishankar has already created and dedicated a whole thread about his article he linked to in this very thread. The point I'm trying to make is either:

1) If you don't like repeating yourself, link to your existing threads you've posted in or ignore the thread, as the same discussions will be brought up by new members or even existing members for that matter.
2) Linking to articles is ok but when it's a persistant linking to your own site, we have to raise our eyebrows and draw the line somewhere. I did it in this case since Harishankar already created a thread to solely discuss this article of his.
3) We don't allow other members to link to their sites in a persistant manner, so everyone is treated the same. I don't deem linking to technical documents that explicity tell someone how to fix a technical question they have as any wrongdoing and is perfectly fine. But I do have problems with members who link others to their site for an opinion type article they've written and link to it in more than one instance, I raise my concerns then.

The first thread he created solely to link others to go read at his own site was borderline enough in regards to creating threads to link to one's own website but the second time I feel I had to say something.

So if anyone else wants to dicuss the rules, use email instead of posting here. Now on with the Topic.

Well, why didn't you e-mail me in the first place or just report my post and move on?

I was shocked at your post and certainly believed that the lines of moderation has been overstepped in this case and I had been treated unfairly. What more natural than to justify my actions in public?

I do believe that people reading this would consider me a spammer going by your post and having been on this forum such a long time and having built a reputation for myself, I do not want any false accusations to go unanswered.

In public. Yes.

the YinYeti, thanks for that. I also did point out to this ambiguity in LQ rules in the past... it's so confusing as to what's allowed and what's not, especially on borderline issues like this one. I hope Jeremy or a moderator can clarify this in public.

Let's just say this, I know of two articles you've written and pointed members to your site to read. Now you've linked one of those articles again in a different thread. I raised my concerns and posted a moderation for all to see so everyone who reads them are well aware of when the line has been crossed.

In my opinion, if you write articles and want to share them, submit them as an article on this site for approval. If not, if we allow you to link members to your blog to read your articles, that's opening the door for everyone and I feel there would be a lot of bending and twisting of the rules if or when that actual spammer tries the same thing.

It's hard to draw the line but I felt this one was needed to make a small note in public and have you email in private to discuss but now no one is listening to what I'm asking and the persistance of posting in here is only making matters worse.

SO AGAIN, IF YOU WANT TO DISCUSS THE RULES, EMAIL ME, ANOTHER MODERATOR OR JEREMY.

bah ... old style pollen counting , keep things simple and don't think too much ...

I agree wholeheartedly. It is useless to go to a linux site and complain ablout linux, just as it is useless to do the same in windows forums. Use what's best for you and leave everyone else alone.
If it needs to be in public, can it at least get split from this thread instead of polluting it with something other then the topic. Trickykid's post did not make you look like a spammer, IMO, and I do agree that the past week or 2 I have seen many posts which you call people reverse elitists or bringing up the subject. Instead of linking to your site, it might be better linking to your original thread here.