Disruption reported

ColonelZen

March 28, 2009

Drowning in shit, much like happened at ye olde Yahoo. -- TWZ

6:31:26 PM


Re: Disruption reported

aguysomewhereok

March 28, 2009

How was it any more disruptive than whatever was being discussed about Texas education or whatever it was (or a number of other subjects)? Everyone was free to comment or ignore it and leave it alone. It was closer to being on topic than the Texas stuff. It wasn't spam. Sure, it was idiotic, but if that violates the TOS . . .. I suppose intent might matter, but I don't know what the intent of whoever started the Texas thread was, either. I don't think anyone here has a lower opinion of AI than I do, but I thought the posts had as much right to be here as most of those that remain.

I would say that this just came a little closer to being like y!. Posts can be deleted just because someone complains. It doesn't matter what the TOS are. That may be too harsh. Maybe the IP address was the same as another stalker or they had information that I don't.

7:18:56 PM



Re: Disruption reported

crunchie812

March 28, 2009

<< Drowning in shit, much like happened at ye olde Yahoo. -- TWZ >>

Not even close, but he did seem to be headed that way. Some of his later posts seemed to have disappeared almost instantly so maybe he was going postal, I don't know. He provoked some excellent posts on the part of purity_shapiro, jonathan_sizz, and others. The whole thing was comparatively on topic for a weekend.

11:54:47 PM


Disruption not unwelcome

heimdal31

March 29, 2009

<<How was it any more disruptive than whatever was being discussed about Texas education or whatever it was (or a number of other subjects)? Everyone was free to comment or ignore it and leave it alone. It was closer to being on topic than the Texas stuff. It wasn't spam. Sure, it was idiotic, but if that violates the TOS . . .. I suppose intent might matter, but I don't know what the intent of whoever started the Texas thread was, either. I don't think anyone here has a lower opinion of AI than I do, but I thought the posts had as much right to be here as most of those that remain.>>

I'll go a bit further.

Yes, teh anonamoose one clogged the board. Yes, the PJ crap was crap. However, I found the responses to the Solaris accusations educational and interesting.

It's probably good for me that IV doesn't have negative recs, because I'm certain this post would glean some. Echo chambers are dangerous--even ones that I feel completely comfortable in. For weeks this board has wandered into incredibly off-topic political discussions, the occasional on-topic posts of court filings, some financial documentation, some TA, and a few OT requests for help. All good, but the court filings and financial analysis was limited to a small handful of faithful.

Teh anonamoose started with bizarre PJ claims and received the same response that bizarre PJ claims have over the years: Your claims are BS, but they don't matter. Even if they were true, PJ's arguments operate in the realm of ideas, supported with evidence and proof. The ideas win.

Anonamoose moved on to idiotic technical claims. Anonamoose's opinion was not going to change, but the discussion brought out a number of interesting, technical posts. Now, perhaps some would claim we were helping someone to do their homework in setting up a new attack. I think that unlikely given the idiocy of the claims.

My programming skill is so limited as to not really permit me to call myself a programmer. The most low level code I wrote was in a 300 level C class where we wrote a subroutine to multiply larger than 32 bit numbers on a 32 bit processor and then examined and re-wrote the decompiled output in machine code to be more efficient. This was back in college in the late 80's while I was an English major. I've written more complex code since then, but the most interesting was in the pretty high-level PL/SQL. I can't write any of the responses that have come out in treply to anonamoose's ridiculous Solaris claims, but I have just barely enough background to understand how much the responses put those claims in their place.

Are we helping someone to make their attack better?

My answer is a variation on the PJ attacks: The attacks are BS and they don't matter. They fail in the realm of evidence and proof. There is no way we can help do the homework to make them credible.

Back in the spring of 2003 when this all started, I, like many here, became obsessed. However, as I have written years ago, initially there was a smidgen of doubt that some lesser form of the claims may have been possible. If there is anything the intervening nearly 6 years have convinced me of it is that the F/OSS development process is strongly driven by pride in output. Even a hint of code not being one's own is enough to cause re-writes. I am now completely convinced that a F/OSS contributor is not going to take a shortcut and copy something. Also, unlike before SCO helped the scales to fall from my eyes, I am more convinced than ever that proprietary software, where profits and deadlines rule, is not as forthright. I'll go 1/8 of an inch out on a limb and proclaim the likelihood of finding stolen code in some commonly used proprietary OS is much higher than finding it in Linux.

All of this to say that I'm not concerned that our responses to teh anonamoose one is going to help the enemies of F/OSS and that, with the exception of the PJ crap, I found the responses actually interesting, because we had been a bit too insular before teh anonamoose one came along.

No, I don't want to see this IV board become Y! But, I'm not convinced that the recent onslaught was any evidence that it was about to. In fact, it helped to break up a few of the echoes, which isn't a bad thing--even if the result was a briefly "clogged" board.

12:37:39 AM


Source: Investor Village SCO Board [ http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911, https://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=1911&mn=82968&pt=msg&mid=6948402 ]

Copyright 2009