- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
Let Sleeping Dogs Lie?
|
|
Comments (21)
1 earlier comment in the full thread.
Yeah, lets stop linking to all blog articles that somebody doesn't agree with until there are no articles left to publish!
Quoting:Yeah, lets stop linking to all blog articles that ...
I don't believe Lxer has any boycott policy other than articles/posts that don't comply with TOS. I am glad my experience with Lxer policy has been to allow users decide what and what not to read/post within limited screening.
@Fettoosh
I agree. The information load per day isn't that high that it needs weeding out.
BTW, all these articles come back to the same old discussion. There have always been trolls and there always will be. I also learned that one mans troll can be another mans opponent - somewhat like terrorists and freedom fighters. And I consider killing all profanity in the comment section simple every day maintenance. No need to make a fuzz about that.
BTW, all these articles come back to the same old discussion. There have always been trolls and there always will be. I also learned that one mans troll can be another mans opponent - somewhat like terrorists and freedom fighters. And I consider killing all profanity in the comment section simple every day maintenance. No need to make a fuzz about that.
LXer is here to bring you the good, the bad and the ugly. As long as it concerns free software/culture.
While I would agree that there is a component of selfishness in wanting to weed out LA from lxer (Keeping my news source clean). I will disagree with some of the comments made.
Linux4567, I don't want LA omitted because I disagree with the content. I believe that LA does not comply with the mission statement of this site. Misinformation by lack of research or pure omission is not an opinion. The misinformation in the site is detrimental to the community. This aggrivates the fragmentation in the community by further misleading misinformed advocates (of systemd, deb, etc).
I base my opinion on the grounds of rising the bar of lxer an its mission statement. Not on the grounds of boycotting a nasty site, although that in itself has merit.
edit: on the post above mine: If this is indeed the case, I have misunderstood lxer. I don't think there is a particular merit in doing that as a site...but then my argument might be less relevant.
Linux4567, I don't want LA omitted because I disagree with the content. I believe that LA does not comply with the mission statement of this site. Misinformation by lack of research or pure omission is not an opinion. The misinformation in the site is detrimental to the community. This aggrivates the fragmentation in the community by further misleading misinformed advocates (of systemd, deb, etc).
I base my opinion on the grounds of rising the bar of lxer an its mission statement. Not on the grounds of boycotting a nasty site, although that in itself has merit.
edit: on the post above mine: If this is indeed the case, I have misunderstood lxer. I don't think there is a particular merit in doing that as a site...but then my argument might be less relevant.
@Fettoosh @theBeez
I agree with you here. Even though the LA's trollmastering Link-Baiter-Schmitz deems it fit to AVOID responding to any and all comments here -- even avoiding the ones having the most "rational discourse" over that of others -- the Lxer editors should definitely NOT boycott his posts.
'Couple a weeks ago, Link-Baiter-Schmitz rationalized his decision to SNUB a "rationally discoursing" commentator on LBS's own blog by outright DELETING that commentator's feedback (http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/34597/) and then rationalizing his stunt. Seems to me that there is much less of a chance here at Lxer that Link-Baiter-Schmitz can pull off by himself the same stunt of Snubbing 'n Deleting comments which he happens to disagree with, such as thenixedreport's!!
My 2c
I agree with you here. Even though the LA's trollmastering Link-Baiter-Schmitz deems it fit to AVOID responding to any and all comments here -- even avoiding the ones having the most "rational discourse" over that of others -- the Lxer editors should definitely NOT boycott his posts.
'Couple a weeks ago, Link-Baiter-Schmitz rationalized his decision to SNUB a "rationally discoursing" commentator on LBS's own blog by outright DELETING that commentator's feedback (http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/34597/) and then rationalizing his stunt. Seems to me that there is much less of a chance here at Lxer that Link-Baiter-Schmitz can pull off by himself the same stunt of Snubbing 'n Deleting comments which he happens to disagree with, such as thenixedreport's!!
My 2c
Censoring a site for a policy of censoring is not the answer; in fact, it serves to portray the censor as the victim.
> I am glad my experience with Lxer policy has been to allow users decide what and what not to read/post within limited screening.
Absolutely. That's what the discussion area is for, to let people exchange their views on which articles are worthwhile and which one aren't.
Absolutely. That's what the discussion area is for, to let people exchange their views on which articles are worthwhile and which one aren't.
@lietkynes: what you call misinformation is simply a different opinion. I agree with Dietrich (with regards to systemd, not necessarily with regards to other things) and I'm not the only one by far.
What I notice though here is that all you systemd fans simply attach the person, not the arguments.
Why is that? Is systemd so bad that you can't defend it on it's merits but rather have to resort to personal attacks?
What I notice though here is that all you systemd fans simply attach the person, not the arguments.
Why is that? Is systemd so bad that you can't defend it on it's merits but rather have to resort to personal attacks?
>> Even though the LA's trollmastering Link-Baiter-Schmitz deems it fit to AVOID responding to any and all comments here....
According to saltynoob's comment in the 'Vocal minority' thread http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/34626/ , "*link bait = spreading factually wrong info disguised as opinion to get clicks to a web site.*" Hence, I too am definitely calling LA's trollmaster Schmitz a Link-Baiter.
@schestowitz,
>> Censoring a site for a policy of censoring is not the answer; in fact, it serves to portray the censor as the victim.
OTOH, I and many others have ZERO problems w/ *individually* boycotting -- outside of LXer -- a site like Link-Baiter-Schmitz's for its pseudo-"censorship" policy, i.e., what I term his Snubbing 'n Deleting even *fully rational* points of discussion! Four comments above saltynoob's in the selfsame 'Vocal minority' thread, YOU YOURSELF describe how LBS Snubbed 'n Deleted YOUR OWN and others' entirely rational comments on LA!! Note that although LBS deems it fit to AVOID responding to any and all thread-comments regarding systemd, he certainly has no problem continually submitting his LB'ing *posts* to LXer.
Why is that? Is systemd really so bad and does pseudo-"censoring" Linux Advocate Schmitz really feel so "victimized" that he has to keep resorting to kindergarden-level Link-Bait stunts, as opposed to rationally discussing systemd along with its current+future alternatives right here on LXer directly?? Prototypical kindergarden-level Show 'n Tell Baiting: Ms/Mr Teacher, look at MY toy/(link).... No No, Ms/Mr Teacher, look at *MY* toy/(link) instead!!
2 more c's
According to saltynoob's comment in the 'Vocal minority' thread http://lxer.com/module/forums/t/34626/ , "*link bait = spreading factually wrong info disguised as opinion to get clicks to a web site.*" Hence, I too am definitely calling LA's trollmaster Schmitz a Link-Baiter.
@schestowitz,
>> Censoring a site for a policy of censoring is not the answer; in fact, it serves to portray the censor as the victim.
OTOH, I and many others have ZERO problems w/ *individually* boycotting -- outside of LXer -- a site like Link-Baiter-Schmitz's for its pseudo-"censorship" policy, i.e., what I term his Snubbing 'n Deleting even *fully rational* points of discussion! Four comments above saltynoob's in the selfsame 'Vocal minority' thread, YOU YOURSELF describe how LBS Snubbed 'n Deleted YOUR OWN and others' entirely rational comments on LA!! Note that although LBS deems it fit to AVOID responding to any and all thread-comments regarding systemd, he certainly has no problem continually submitting his LB'ing *posts* to LXer.
Why is that? Is systemd really so bad and does pseudo-"censoring" Linux Advocate Schmitz really feel so "victimized" that he has to keep resorting to kindergarden-level Link-Bait stunts, as opposed to rationally discussing systemd along with its current+future alternatives right here on LXer directly?? Prototypical kindergarden-level Show 'n Tell Baiting: Ms/Mr Teacher, look at MY toy/(link).... No No, Ms/Mr Teacher, look at *MY* toy/(link) instead!!
2 more c's
> What I notice though here is that all you systemd fans simply attach the person...
Eh? As far as can remember, Caitlyn's support for systemd has been entirely factual in nature. I don't believe she's even attacked anyone specific, though her characterization of its opponents as a group may have been less than complimentary.
Eh? As far as can remember, Caitlyn's support for systemd has been entirely factual in nature. I don't believe she's even attacked anyone specific, though her characterization of its opponents as a group may have been less than complimentary.
@jdixon: I certainly hope it's been a factual representation of my experience. I plan on doing an article on systemd. While I certainly don't dismiss all of the criticism, please do realize that anything new that requires change and a significant learning curve will receive sharp complaints and barbs. I think that is very much the case with systemd.
Regarding Linux Advocates, I can't approach that subject in an unbiased way anymore. Dietrich Schmitz has asked me to write for the site and I have accepted his invitation. Whether that's a positive or a negative depends on what you think of my writing. :)
Regarding Linux Advocates, I can't approach that subject in an unbiased way anymore. Dietrich Schmitz has asked me to write for the site and I have accepted his invitation. Whether that's a positive or a negative depends on what you think of my writing. :)
@caitlyn :
Not to worry -- your writing is worth reading, well-written and informative, whether or not one happens to agree with you.
Not to worry -- your writing is worth reading, well-written and informative, whether or not one happens to agree with you.
Thank you, BernardSwiss. That's high praise indeed.
Looking into the systemd issue (which I thus far have not had any experience of), I really can't see what all the fuss is about.
systemd seems to follow the pattern of a lot of Linux daemons that are binary and are driven by config files. The fact that it is compiled is not particularly unusual.
The only worry that I would have is its scope and sphere of influence. As a system service, its remit should be as narrow as possible otherwise it stands a real chance of perverting the modular nature of the kernel's support structure and cause the system to become rather too monolithic for my liking.
The only worry that I would have is its scope and sphere of influence. As a system service, its remit should be as narrow as possible otherwise it stands a real chance of perverting the modular nature of the kernel's support structure and cause the system to become rather too monolithic for my liking.
To me change is always good. If it turns out be be a bad change, it is a lesson learned. If it turns out to be good, it is progress.
No change is stagnation which becomes boring, moldy, and stale instead of being exciting, fresh, and vibrant.
I too don't see what the fuss is all about.
No change is stagnation which becomes boring, moldy, and stale instead of being exciting, fresh, and vibrant.
I too don't see what the fuss is all about.
Change for change's sake is just a monumental waste of time and resources, not just of the programmers involved but especially of all the thousands of admins who have to spend time learning something new for no good reason.
There are a lot more useful things to do than constantly reinventing the wheel.
There are a lot more useful things to do than constantly reinventing the wheel.
linux4567: I agree. When I deploy a carefully tested piece of complex production code to a server, I don't want to have to worry about having to rewrite its scripting whenever I do an update.
That's why I like using RHEL/CentOS on servers, to take advantage of its long term approach to system stability.
That's why I like using RHEL/CentOS on servers, to take advantage of its long term approach to system stability.
Quoting:Change for change's sake is just a monumental waste of time and resources, not just of the programmers involved but especially of all the thousands of admins who have to spend time learning something new for no good reason.
In the eye of the beholder, change is always done for a reason. FOSS continues to progress so fast mostly because of change. Change is how pioneers explore new technologies to create new innovations. I don't see how the obvious evolutionary process of constant change in nature is not appreciated.
All Linux advocates in the site (except Ken) have left. Caitlyn should be careful to agree with the freeloader (of articles) 100% of the time. If at one time she does not, e.g. if she says "Fab is not a troll" (after Schmitz decided to troll and attack him publicly), then she's out, account suspended! Some people refuse to learn from the experience of others.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post