11.22.07

If you liked this post, consider subscribing to the RSS feed or join us now at the IRC channels.

Pages that cross-reference this one

23 Comments

1. Jim Powers said,

   November 22, 2007 at 5:33 pm

   

   Hmmm, it is true that idiotic blog abuse is a a sad thing, but for reference would you consider putting up a selection of eet’s posts? The point being is that Mr./Ms. eet will try to come back. Also, he/she/it will try to cross-post elsewhere. A sample of comments might be worthwhile as a “fingerprint” so others who read this blog might be able to identify eet’s work elsewhere.

   Another approach is a digg-style commenting system where comments can be voted down (buried if necessary). This may require quite a bit of hacking but may work out better.

   Alas, this site is a true gem: it remains focused, clear, thoughtful, and persistent in its mission. There will be detractors: clearly not everyone is going to agree with the opinions expressed here. Sadly most of the detractors will come in the following forms:

   - Lazy S.O.B.s who are thoughtlessly complacent with the status-quo. “Hey, it’s all business the ‘market’ will work it out… eventually. In the mean time don’t preach.” What these people fail to realize is that WE are the market, and we are saying the stuff stinks and NEEDS to change.

   - Active harmers: those with a vested interest in MS/Novell/Patent portfolios, and do not like to be told the truth, or have the truth be known: that they are actively causing harm to others for their own benefit. They would like nothing better than to hide behind the moniker: “what’s good for business is good for everyone”. Alas, this is simply not true. Patent elimination must become a broad social goal, and in the short-term forces that wish to interfere with the FLOSS movement by FUD and illegal/unethical action must be called out. If you don’t like being labeled a slime-ball do something about that: stop being a slime-ball.

   - The “lost”: those who do not understand what is happening or what is at risk, but will defend the status-quo because: “there must be good reasons why so many people support how the world works today otherwise people would stop engaging in ‘said’ behavior (like supporting software patents, or buying MS or Novell products, etc.)” Little do these people realize that much of what they have been taught about how the world works is propaganda intended to support those profiting form the status-quo. some of these folks may wake up, until then they are a negative force.

   Keep up the excellent work.

2. Roy Schestowitz said,

   November 22, 2007 at 5:57 pm

   

   Jim,

   You are right. I’ll update the post and append some examples of abusive posts.

3. e_et said,

   November 22, 2007 at 5:59 pm

   

   Well, that certainly was effective work, worthy of a Ph.D. candidate.

   Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll

4. Roy Schestowitz said,

   November 22, 2007 at 6:10 pm

   

   You can run, but you can’t hide. You can nymshift, use proxies, whatever, but I can blacklist at C- and D-block level. You’re just punishing your ISP and wasting your time.

5. e_et said,

   November 22, 2007 at 6:12 pm

   

   You could spare yourself this obsessive behavior and rather produce some real evidence for your conspiracy theory. That’s all I ask.

   Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll

6. Jim Powers said,

   November 23, 2007 at 12:01 am

   

   To the isomorphism of ‘eet’, a few points:

   1. You ask for “evidence”, seems to me that there is plenty of evidence about the site’s claims spread among the copious pages published on this site. You are not obliged to agree with them. The point of an open blog posting system is to interact with the authors of the content of the site. If you disagree a more productive response might be to provide a rebuttal. One with analysis and your own backup. Seems fair.

   2. In what way is the behavior of Microsoft, Novell, et al. inconsistent with the image portrayed on this site? Clearly, others (ESR, EU anti-trust investigations, numerous posters on Groklaw, etc.) have uncovered hard evidence of MS’s clear desire to simply “destroy” FLOSS. Do you disagree with this? Why? Do you have evidence contrary to the evidence presented here and elsewhere? If so, please come forth with such evidence. Just remember your evidence will be vetted, scrutinized, and heavily analyzed and the conclusions people draw my not agree with your own, just as you do not agree with the opinions and evidence presented here.

   3. The people who author content for this site have limited ability to access “hard” evidence outside what can be acquired through more empowered investigative channels. But, in a way that is not the role of this site. It provides a secondary analysis of the information stream, unlike the American CIA the supporting data used by this site is presented in the open. Clearly, you can come to your own opinions on the matter given the supportive materials used by the authors of articles on this site, but present something more constructive than ad hominem attacks. I seriously doubt the the authors who post to this site would dismiss reasoned analysis of the source material that is contrary to the authors opinions.

   4. How many other sites are providing the kind of coverage presented here? The issues covered here get basically no play in the “mainstream news” outlets. This is due to numerous reasons, not the least of which is that many more “popular” sites are beholden to MS for one reason or another. Exceptions to this may be Digg and Slashdot, but the general opinion expressed there (by both posters and editors, at least in the case of Slashdot) is not really inconsistent with the views expressed here. This is not “evidence” that supports the opinions expressed here, but it is a reflection of the fact that opinions about MS, Novell, SCO, and others are not positive, to say the least. Given MS public statements and behavior it really isn’t all that hard to come to the “conspiratorial” conclusions expressed in this site. Seriously, you cannot disagree with that (it might be fun to see you try though).

   Like it or not the basic premise behind the need to boycott Novell is sound: Novell entered into an agreement with Microsoft that is simply incompatible with FLOSS. It provides justification to an unjustified claim by MS that they are due monies for FLOSS. Further that agreements like the once between Novell and MS is what is required in order to “interoperate” with MS software. Let me ask you this: why is it that MS simply can not come forward and make interoperability with Linux a GOAL of their activities? They could, there is absolutely no technical reason why they cannot. But they choose to run off into the darkness creating instance after instance of hidden protocols and file-formats, making the rest of the world chase after them. Now, MS would like to “address” this issue by getting the rest of the world to sign licenses to even lay eyeballs on the specifications to their “secret sauce”, but this is NOT the behavior of a company that wants to promote interoperability. The sad thing is that most of the world is not aware of just how unethical/bad this practice is. Sites like this help begin to awaken the power in people by making them realize that they do NOT have to agree to the unilateral practices of MS. They can say no to MS. The more who do so the better WE will all be. Eventually MS will have to “play fair”. They will have to realize that this headless monster that is FLOSS is simply too agile, too smart for them: they cannot kill it. The sad fact is that they may do much social, legal, and economic damage before they awaken to the needless futility of their jihad.

   As for you, you can choose to disagree with this site, but if you wish to actually make a difference expressing your opinions you will need to do something more constructively substantiative than you have done in the past. Or, if you think the opinions expressed here are irrelevant and the work of “self-deluded” sick minds then cease to be an antagonist. Move on and find other outlets more to your liking; the web is a big place.

7. Roy Schestowitz said,

   November 23, 2007 at 1:05 am

   

   Thanks, Jim.

   Two quick points I wish to make.

   The people who author content for this site have limited ability to access “hard” evidence outside what can be acquired through more empowered investigative channels.

   I have actually received leaks and rather exclusive information, but the effort required the hide the identity of leakers makes things difficult at times. In most cases, I prefer to cite reliable sources other than my own (mainly E-mail) because it passes liability to somebody else. I back my claims with hard peripheral evidence (sources) unless I state otherwise, in which case it’s an analysis. I cannot afford to handle lawsuits. The following was published just a couple of days ago:

   Bloggers beware: You’re liable to commit libel

   www.cnet.com/8301-13555_1-9821584-34.html?tag=rsspr.6219820&part=rss&subj=news

   When I write for a publisher (Datamation/Jupitermedia), I reach out for a source that provides balance (again, to prevent prospects of someone calling “slander”).

   This is due to numerous reasons, not the least of which is that many more “popular” sites are beholden to MS for one reason or another. Exceptions to this may be Digg and Slashdot…

   I’m not sure about Digg anymore. I am the most prolific commenter in that Web site (12,000+ comments), but it has not been the same in the past month. I wrote about my concerns elsewhere and shared it with their staff also.

   Just so that you’re aware, I’ve been in touch with some folks who run Linux sites which are cited frequently by Digg’s front page. Submissions to their sites get altogether deleted or buried within hours. There’s also the big rise in trolling activity in the UNIX/Linux section (insults, slander, systematic modding down of comments) and I suspect many Linux users have left Digg. Well, actually, no… I know this for a fact. There is a small group there that has had a smear campaign against me going on for a while. That group came from USENET where it has harassed Linux newsgroups for over a decade (some of it anyway).

   Whether something coordinated is ruining Digg for Linux, I can’t tell. If I do, people will start talking about my tinfoil helmet. Still, Slashdot is Slashdot. After the takeover, however, it contains plenty of anti-Linux ads, which are sponsored by Microsoft. If you use something like NoScript or AdBlock, you probably would not notice, but the typical MBA (CIO?) will probably notice and be subjected to disinformation, courtesy of our ‘friends’ in Redmond and Port 25.

8. Jim Powers said,

   November 23, 2007 at 1:42 am

   

   RE: leaks and hiding, understood.

   RE: Digg and Slashdot, mostly understood

   On Digg there is a lot of, um, fluff now appearing as all the top stories. I would, in fact, go as far as to say that there is a coordinated effort to suppress substantive news from reaching the “front page” of digg. Unfortunately, it’s not too hard to “hack” digg to make it become a dis-information channel.

   On Slashdot, yes, I know the ads are there, I do run AdBlock, but I have seen the ads there for years. Still, I would say that the editorial content of Slashdot continues to remain pretty clearly pro FLOSS, the keywording bears that out. But it also may be true that they may be soft-balling the news a bit. Sad. lxer.com is a better source of news in that regard. Also, I’ve noted that Ars technica, once pretty clearly in the “almost in the middle slightly leaning towards the proprietary camp” is shift more and more in the FLOSS direction. This is a good sign that the items covered here are beginning to percolate up.

   Clearly, if you look at the lobbying machine that Microsoft+ has in place around the world there can be really no other rational conclusion than to say that they do, in fact, employ, directly or indirectly, forces to whitewash the Internet regarding news about their activity. Alas, one of the weaknesses of the Internet is that “it’s all in one place”, so to speak. So hire a bunch of folks or “incent” partners or toadies to get out there and “hide or suppress” the bad and “spread the good” simply HAS to be happening. Since the VAST majority of the populace is ignorant it is practically a trivial matter for MS to come off as being “innovative” and a “good business citizen” because the real actions that they engage in is simply incomprehensible to the average person. This is not tin-foil hat voices in my head stuff: there is evidence out there already supporting this FACT. The power of a site like this is that is brings together all of this information into one place.

   One of the down-sides is that, probably, for the first time in history we have a company with a monopoly that desperately WANTS to keep its monopoly AT ALL COSTS, and is SMARTER than nearly every government on Earth, AND has enough “fingers in the pie”, so to speak, to make good on many, many threats, and the wherewithal to follow through.

   Please, keep up the good fight, the various incarnation of the ‘eets’ of the world, unfortunately, may choose the path of irrelevant annoyances.

   Might I suggest a better way to address the eets of the world: fighting back via banning and blocking is not likely to get the results you are looking for, I’m sure you would agree. Instead, add an administrative feature to your site to mark a comment as “irrelevant” and have such comment displayed in a fashion so as to “de-emphasize” it. This way you don’t have to fight the war with your conscience about cencoring: the “dumb-ass” comments are allowed to remain, but will now be “de-emphasized” and marked with a a tag:

   The following comment has been flagged as “irrelevant” or abusive, or off-topic, or whatever. It’s not quite Slashdot’s moderation system, but it does help address a troll problem is a more “scalable” fashion.

   Just my two cents.

9. Roy Schestowitz said,

   November 23, 2007 at 1:55 am

   

   Sound advice. That’s what I shall do, starting with this one particular page. (mind changes above)

   Moderation will stay for the likes of ‘eet’. I needn’t see comments comparing us to Nazis, unless it passes very lenient approval criteria.

10. e__et said,

    November 23, 2007 at 2:41 am

    

    @Jim Powers:
    “The people who author content for this site have limited ability to access “hard” evidence outside what can be acquired through more empowered investigative channels.”
    There is a certain problem to people who create constructs of hidden and coordinated action against them or others, namely that the belief is psychologically and socially harmful. Once you accept the theory you will not let it be taken into doubt by any counter-argument. You will interpret any (non-related) events as being coordinated by the conspirators; see Roy’s comment here:

    “Whether something coordinated is ruining Digg for Linux, I can’t tell. If I do, people will start talking about my tinfoil helmet.”

    Indeed. You see, once you choose to believe, you change your whole word-view from mainstream interpretations of what is happening in the world to a very special angle to interpretation. There actually is a danger of loosing touch with the common view of reality. And due to the nature of conspiracy theories, you cannot be disproven. Whether you want to fall into that mental trap is ultimately your choice. What I don’t like about Roy is that his behavior has become really obsessive (and tasteless), in trying to ‘infect’ others with his world-view.

    This also explains his extreme reaction to my posts; it is not about abuse but actually about someone question a pseudo-religion of his.

    Note: comment has been flagged for arriving from an abusive Internet troll

11. SubSonica said,

    November 23, 2007 at 3:03 am

    

    eet: You have been EEed by Microsoft

    “mainstream interpretations of what is happening in the world to a very special angle to interpretation.”

    What you call “mainstream interpretations” are the views that are fabricated by corporations for people like you and the average mass to consume and create a favourable mindset for their business and keep you irrelevant and harmless.

    What you call “a very special angle of interpretation” is simply a critical and informaed analysis of the situation, which, unfortunately with the increasing manipulation of infformation by the media and the disappearing difference between what is news and what is simply PR and marketing chatter is becoming every day more difficult and rare.

12. SubSonica said,

    November 23, 2007 at 3:03 am

    

    oops, sorry Roy. don´t feed the trolls…

13. Roy Schestowitz said,

    November 23, 2007 at 3:14 am

    

    SubSonica,

    I believe we’ve covered some of the incidents where paid Microsoft shills got caught, but it was usually mentioned in the comments or only partially. Later today I’ll post something more comprehensive to expose parts of this phenomenon using very recent examples. Stay tuned.

14. Roy Schestowitz said,

    November 23, 2007 at 3:16 am

    

    By the way, your previous comment entered the moderation queue because I’m caging certain posts that contain obvious patterns to avoid troll posts from appearing before approval/flagging.

15. SundayRefugee said,

    November 23, 2007 at 5:08 am

    

    The problems are obvious to more than just Roy and the commentators here:

    arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20071122-microsofts-open-source-rhetoric-remains-dangerously-inconsistent.html

    Meanwhile, Roy, I am always about 10 minutes away from hitting “send” on a couple of articles, but I’m very self-conscious about quality. I need to just do it, but I always think of a few more things to add. I hope to get up the nerve shorty To the community: Roy is quite gracious and helpful, and I can heartily recommend getting in touch with him to contribute

16. Roy Schestowitz said,

    November 23, 2007 at 5:19 am

    

    Thanks for the compliment, SundayRefugee. By the way, I cited Ryan Paul’s article several hours ago.

17. ml2mst said,

    November 23, 2007 at 11:19 pm

    

    I see an analogy to the “comments” by ‘eet’ and the insults on Usenet.

    1. Here he’s complaining about the action taken if he questions the authors points of view. On Usenet he complains, when he questions Linux.

    2. Here he also questions Roy’s Phd. On Usenet recently a fake letter to the University of Manchester was written. His only goal is to ridicule Roy’s Phd.

    3. Here he attacks readers that agree with the authors. On Usenet he attacks readers that ad