Comments on: ZOMG! TEH PATENTZ!

By: FreeBooteR

FreeBooteR — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:41:32 +0000

Only those who have GNU/Linux from Novell are covered under the MS promise. All those that try to ridicule those against wide spread adoption should line up with their wallets ready when MS starts to sue after it has completely contaminated GNU/Linux and free software alternatives.

By: Driver GPL da Microsoft e opinião sobre xiitas. « Marcos Roriz $:

Driver GPL da Microsoft e opinião sobre xiitas. « Marcos Roriz $: — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 19:14:41 +0000

[...] ZOMG! TEH PATENTZ! http://www2.apebox.org/wordpress/linux/51/ [...]

By: Wayne

Wayne — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 05:42:26 +0000

Fascinating. I’ve been trying to track when and where the current excitement about Mono started, and this so far is the oldest article being refered to.

By: ZOMG! TEH DISINFORMATION! « mono-nono

ZOMG! TEH DISINFORMATION! « mono-nono — Sat, 04 Jul 2009 09:38:04 +0000

[...] Jo Shields is an active mono apologist, especially in the Ubuntu community. Often, after he posts something on his blog, the talking points go endlessly around the Ubuntu Forums and related sites. Take for example, his brilliantly argued ZOMG! TEH PATENTZ! [...]

By: Roland

Roland — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 23:52:14 +0000

Your mention of MS’ claim of a patent for ‘ping’ brought back bad memories. Every unix in the early ’90’s implemented ping that was compatible with other OSes. Except MS–they added an option to include large amounts of random data in the ping packet. This broke lots of non-MS boxes out there. Script kiddies began pinging unix boxes and crashing them so they could say MS is better. This required emergency patches to all sorts of things, including NCD X-terminals. MS violated the spirit of the internet at the time with a gratuitous & non-standard ping option. That’s ‘embrace-extend’extinguish’. I wouldn’t be surprised if they pulled that kind of stunt again.

By: To Mono or not to Mono? « Sound and Complete

To Mono or not to Mono? « Sound and Complete — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:07:33 +0000

[...] Shields makes a good argument in his article from a couple of months ago: he lists a number of software projects that Microsoft claims to have [...]

By: directhex

directhex — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 19:08:41 +0000

@neighborlee, please explain the relevance, then. Why is that detail, which is distinct from the packaging work I do, relevant to the topic? As for "the ECMA thing", I already replied to it on your last comment.

By: neighborlee

neighborlee — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:59:55 +0000

It is not irrelvant..watch professionals do this on msnbc for example.and they always say right up front, who the guest is and what they do for a living..so yes it IS relevant..

Besides,,what about the ECMA thing Jo, is that also irrelvant ?

Why not answer that too while your at it, or is that question somehow also irrelevant ?

cheers
nl

By: directhex

directhex — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 08:58:40 +0000

No, it’s not secret – it’s also entirely irrelevant. And I was under the impression that “standard journalistic practice” involved actually contacting someone you were attacking, y’know, for comment.

If revealing things about people is relevant, can we talk about how Roy still lives in University halls of residence? Does that add valid context to the things HE writes about me?

By: foljs

foljs — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 08:43:01 +0000

Epic journalism, guys. Real smooth. Listing my employers there is *totally* worthwhile and relevant. Do you want my driving license number whilst you’re at it? It starts with an “S”

Of course it is relevant. It gives context and is standard journalistic practice to introduce someone along with his profession.

This has nothing to do with personal information such as your driver’s lincence (a cheap shot).

Is your employment secret?! It’s the first thing you write about in your, hmm, “About page”…

Also, LOL-talk does not a valid argument make.