Re: [Gnu-arch-users] top posting and flame

[Stephen J. Turnbull]

*sigh*  Bogus from beginning to end, but I don't think there's any
point in addressing it point by point.  Sensible people will see
almost all of that for themselves, and the fanboys won't even if
explained in words of one syllable.

Here's one that's a little subtle, it tugs at the heartstrings of even
a Dismal Scientist:

    Thomas> [Canonical] exploited my labor.

What happened was that Canonical accepted your gift (of the product of
labor you had long since contributed), on the terms you published (the
GPL).  They returned to you *in kind* as specified in the GPL, but it
so happened you didn't like, and rejected, their code.  Exactly
reciprocal---you wrote code that you liked, Canonical wrote code that
they liked, both published and licensed under the GPL.  Where is there
exploitation?

Here's an important, interesting, 100% unsupported claim:

    Thomas> there were plenty of same-cost alternatives that would
    Thomas> almost certainly have led to a better outcome *for both
    Thomas> sides*.

Indeed?  What were they?  Specifically, what did you propose to
Canonical?  And, for comparison, what did they offer you that was so
self-defeating?  In detail, except for salary, which isn't relevant
(if there's a win-win solution, the salary can adjust to cover net
costs on both sides).

You're welcome to refuse to answer those questions, without any
explanation whatsoever, of course---it's really none of my business.
But lacking those facts, I can't consider your denunciations credible
(well, they discredit *you*, for posting baseless denunciations).
Indeed, I consider this claim the key to almost all of your claims.

    Thomas> They left me in a state of discredit based on highly
    Thomas> misleading rumours about why I had made certain decisions.

If you're referring (at least in part) to my speculations, you are
wrong.  Speaking only for myself: My speculations are mostly based on
your public statements, and in part on your private communications to
me.

I do have sources near and inside Canonical, but they are not at all
forthcoming regarding you in private, and say nothing (that I can
recall) that discredits you that wasn't already a matter of public
record.  I've read the public statements by Canonical employees and/or
fellow travelers on g-a-u, but I generally discount those for obvious
reasons.  The information I *rely* on is contained in your messages
(and that's precious little since you prefer to castigate rather than
explain).

    Thomas> When you come across an expert in some topic that
    Thomas> interests you, you act with respect towards that expert.

They offered you money, did they not?  If so, I count that as
"respect."  What do you have in mind as "lack of respect"?

(Don't say "they should have listened to me when I told them what they
were doing was dumb."  Argument from authority is a logical fallacy.)


-- 
School of Systems and Information Engineering http://turnbull.sk.tsukuba.ac.jp
University of Tsukuba                    Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
               Ask not how you can "do" free software business;
              ask what your business can "do for" free software.