Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #172160

Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates

Show all headers | View raw

On 4/6/13 2:56 PM, in article r9i63a-ad4.ln1@wp.alpha-one.linuxorg, "William
Poaster" <wp@induh-vidual.net> wrote:

> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> 
>> After swilling some grog, TomB belched this bit o' wisdom:
>> 
>>> On 04/06/2013 09:24 AM, Snit wrote:
>>>> On 4/5/13 11:08 PM, in article 20130406075428.108@usenet.drumscum.be,
>>>> "TomB"
>>>> <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> For the people making the two very different DEs to agree *on some
>>>> back-end*
>>>> things which would allow the open source ecosystem to be better.
>>> 
>>> Well, clearly it is their choice *not* to do this. If they wanted to do
>>> this, they already would've.
>>> 
>>> You (and others I'm sure) want KDE and Gnome to agree on "some back-end
>>> things"; KDE and Gnome *choose* not to.
>>> 
>>> Now, would it be a bad thing if KDE and Gnome /did/ choose to agree on
>>> "some back-end things"? No, I definitely don't think so. But in the end
>>> it's their choice, and their decision to make. And I don't see it
>>> happen. They are *competing* environments - just like Windows and OSX -
>>> that happen to run on top of various UNIX-like operating systems.
>>> 
>>> Do I /want/ them to cooperate? It simply doesn't matter; it's up to
>>> them. They are the ones that should want it, and if they don't then so
>>> be it.
>>> 
>>> Personally I think it's pretty naive to believe that there can be a
>>> level of cooperation between KDE and Gnome in the face of spin offs like
>>> Unity, Cinnamon and Mate, which takes the diversity (and thus
>>> "fragmentation") even further. That alone should be a *huge* eye opener
>>> for people like you.
>>> 
>>> As a good GNU/Linux advocate I simply accept that one of the big
>>> strengths of GNU/Linux (diversity) also introduces a number of downsides.
>> 
>> If it bugs Snit so much, why doesn't he create or sponsor a Linux distro
>> with packages that do just that?  He could carry it along, watch it
>> grow, *market* it, get OEMs to carry it in addition to Microsoft's
>> offerings, and get rich.
>> 
>> Sounds like a real winner, if you listen to this troll's whinings.
>> Why doesn't Snit just PUT UP or SHUT UP?
> 
> Because he's *not* that clever, so instead he'd sooner bitch, moan & whine
> about it.

Such a cult-like showing... not a single word to actually comment on my
views and comments, just mindless attacks against me from Ahlstrom, Poaster,
and - to a lesser extent - TomB. At least TomB shows some sign of trying to
understand what he is disagreeing with and is not name calling. I can
respect that. But Ahlstrom and Poaster are just spewing herd-like nonsense
of which they are showing *no* thought at all. Cult-like spewing.

It is what the Linux "advocates" do. TomB, thank you for showing them that
people in COLA can be better than they are.

-- 
> As for Stallman, he is a repulsive person by any standard of decency.
... standard of decency or hygiene.
-- Lusotec

Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-03 22:26 +0000
  Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-03 16:48 -0700
    Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 06:08 +0000
      Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 00:24 -0700
        Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 14:01 +0200
          Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-06 08:33 -0400
            Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 13:53 +0100
              Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates flatfish+++ <phlatphish@yahoo.com> - 2013-04-06 08:57 -0400
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 14:05 +0100
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:53 -0700
              Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:52 -0700
            Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:50 -0700
          Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:35 -0700
            Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 23:44 +0000
              Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 18:15 -0700
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 16:56 +0000
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-08 10:39 -0700
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-09 20:12 +0200
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 15:31 -0700
              Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2013-04-07 08:49 +0200
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 09:06 -0700
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates TomB <tommy.bongaerts@gmail.com> - 2013-04-07 17:02 +0000
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-07 10:43 -0700
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-04-08 07:36 -0500
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> - 2013-04-08 11:28 -0500
                Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-08 09:44 -0700
          Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2013-04-06 14:49 -0400
            Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 12:04 -0700
            Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> - 2013-04-06 20:16 +0000
              Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 13:28 -0700
            Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2013-04-06 22:56 +0100
              Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 15:09 -0700
            Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2013-04-08 07:45 -0500
              chrisv proves his cult-like tendencies again Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-08 06:57 -0700
                Re: chrisv proves his cult-like tendencies again Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2013-04-08 07:03 -0700
      Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> - 2013-04-06 07:00 -0400
        Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates William Poaster <wp@induh-vidual.net> - 2013-04-06 12:52 +0100
          Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:48 -0700
        Re: Snit posts decent article on Linux Advocates Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2013-04-06 11:46 -0700

csiph-web