Web Browser???

[oiaohm]

Z98 knows me well.

meridian.blue you did not answer any of my following quotes.

Its just simply too soon to be talk about it come back in at least 12 months times.

So far you have not disproved my reason for blocking. Number 1 that in 12 months time the ball park on web browsers is still open for massive change. There is a reason why I am saying this. There is going to be a open source battle between gecko based and webkit based. Gecko has had the time to be left alone in the market up until now. I am not going to try to predict the winner.

All threw my posts if you look there are pointers to that. Yet you are providing no valid answer.

Note reactos is most likely not going to be read for production use inside 12 months.

Instead I am having to defend self from stupidity about Corporate culture. I do security evaluation on organization's. Fixing up internal Corporate cultures are things I do quite often. Your blanket statements are completely off the ball meridian.blue. You views are incomplete. I could take this thread completely of topic with time lines of exactly when MS did all the parts leading up to vista because your claims are invalidated by there time line of actions. Set of things causes Vista to appear so bad one of the biggest was missing release date of 2005 pushing there user input to massively out of date.

You are not allowing for the case that there could be more than 1 person in here that could kill the thread either meridian.blue. Simply challenging the moderator to kill a thread is something you should never do. It is the moderators call what threads they kill. If I had a free hand to run this place the way I like. Your account would have been banned for trying to force the moderators hand. There is a reason why Z98 is moderator and I am not. I was classed to savage to be let lose with a free hand.

Also just because moderator does not kill thread does not mean moderator approves.

[meridian.blue]

meridian.blue you did not answer any of my following quotes.

It appears you prefer speculation to clarification which you fail to ask for.

Instead I am having to defend self from stupidity about Corporate culture.

You fail to comprehend the word 'downside' and that Redmond is a corporation and therefore subject to it even in the best of circumstances.

Your blanket statements are completely off the ball meridian.blue.

What is off the ball is your speculation.

I could take this thread completely of topic with time lines of exactly when MS did all the parts leading up to vista because your claims are invalidated by there time line of actions.

You fail to comprehend the first post so you have been off topic for some time. For a claim to be invalid there has to be one made. My statements only entertain Redmond's known corporate mind set, which formed the basis of the Justice Department's actions. This is well documented just do a search.

You are not allowing for the case that there could be more than 1 person in here that could kill the thread either meridian.blue.

You are not allowing for the case that there is a moderator or that killing a thread which is valid creates a mirror.

It is the moderators call what threads they kill.

You confuse challenge with ultimatum. To give an ultimatum a person must have authority. The same is true of making a 'call'. This is not needed with challenge all that is needed is logic and it's logical response.

If I had a free hand to run this place the way I like. Your account would have been banned for trying to force the moderators hand. There is a reason why Z98 is moderator and I am not. I was classed to savage to be let lose with a free hand.

It sounds like you doubt the moderators response (the moderators response in regard to frustration and confirmation of my compliance, was excellent becaues it was dialogue, which forced me to think)... your sociopathical arrogance only forces me to laugh. Your posturing, sophmorish alpha-male line of ignorance clearly savages the rules of any forum. That is why you could be the moderator of an empty forum... called the mirror.

The moderator was viscerally correct. I have seen the light. I welcome all positive input to the thread I posted... but your negative raving and hostile triades I will IGNORE! In the sacred name of reason and logic I impor you to return to your mirror (or soapbox with a megaphone) and troll and hijack no more.

Nuff said... end of line.

[oiaohm]

Please meridian.blue that is 100 percent off topic post. Still failing to answer why this thread should be left going. Nothing useful is coming form it.

Redmond's known corporate mind set. Sorry to say that is not the only problem. Also what formed the basis of the Justice Department actions is about monopoly practices. I have read those documents.

I understand the downside to the Redmond model better that you. As I suspected you are based on incomplete information. Justice Department does not document MS/Application development pattern. Yes its a really really bad pattern.

First do a surveys (Hello user input) of what features users (Including application developers) want. This includes flaws in past products. This process is done at the start of development. Followed by research into what hardware they should expect for the final product.

Next this information is used by internal teams to develop the solutions to the problems. These solutions go before a committees to see if they met the requirements of the surveys. Hello first error survey data can be out of date big time. Normally threw the complete process collecting new outside user data is not done until Beta release. Even if survey information they are using is like 6 years old.

Then internal alpha testing then external beta testing. Now there is another 4 issue here. Major features are still being added in MS beta testing. Selection of Beta testers are not that great so you get a lot of people who don't feed in good feed back. Finally as what is always said pay peanuts get monkeys that is also what the do with Beta testers give them free copies of the software. Spot the major problem here if the program is next to useless why are you going to bother writing feedback when you are going to be paid with a program that does not work. Finally that something is completely stuffed feedback turns up late after stacks of code that depends on it is built ie testers were invited late into the process.

Sorry the Justice Department had no interest in there case why MS produces suspect product after suspect product and that only by sp1 or sp2 are the glitches sorted out. Only why they were designing product after product in a anti completive way. Collecting user input at wrong times is the biggest MS problem with software design. At no time am I saying that Redmond's model is perfect. When you know the model they are using you really wonder why people buy programs from them.

For some reason you think I am following there flawed logic. I am not. I am following the more correct logic of get the information when its useful.

Now answer the Question how will the selection of web browser engine at this time be current in 12 months time at least when a developer might have a chance to do something about it or when reactos might be ready for more advanced public use?

Some how I think you can see the same as me. In 12 months time this topic will be useless the same time we first get lined up to use the information. I don't want anything set in stone here so people cannot go in 12 months time this was current then so its current now and repeat the internal MS makes on every application.

Z98 is not the only person with the right to kill threads. Every major developer has the right as well. Here is the kicker so can I under web site function testing. Its not exactly that I cannot. Its that I choose not. I know past any questions I would be more savage than I should be in a forum dealing with new users. So I don't use those options. Also something you don't know I turned down the job of moderator here and recommended Z98 for the job. Nice miss quote. Even worse I have ran forums in the past and they were not empty. They were strict but fair. I had published my rules. One of them was never to challenge a moderator to close a topic. Its simple disrespect to the moderator. Also learn not to presume that someone is teeth less.

meridian.blue moderators don't give warning without good reason. You were warned not to get into a long winded debate with me. If you go back threw History of this forum others made same mistake as you. Topic was over NTFS. Same mistake thinking was correct with incomplete information.

[meridian.blue]

Not impressed...

Appeal to authority as logical fallacy
An (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:

1) A makes claim B;
2) there is something positive about A,
3) therefore claim B is true.

You chose your moderator well... However any claim you make to fairness or respect as a moderator contradicts your posts to this thread and your philosophy.

Appeal to fear is childish, appeal to reason is superior. As far as being a pit bull (savaging... by default a hostile blatant form of disrespect and/or failed communication and contrary to the concept of what a forum is) my challenge is now made to YOU with no fear (I have a life regardless of my interest in your project). I go where I am celebrated not tolerated. Your line of reasoning is why I have great contempt for Redmond and why I am here. Your tone from the beginning was arrogant and disrespectful and patronizing. Unfortunately, it is not me that has met the wrong person it's you. To threaten me or attempt to coerce me only proves my point. Retaliation proves my position regarding the omnipotence (as least assumed) of gatekeepers which you have now identified yourself to be. So here's a thought... you retaliate against me and I move on to ubuntu/linux (you are not teethless and I am not optionless... yours is not the only game in town) with the rest of the Redmond refugees. Do not call this a forum if you wish to censor thought. Call it a "Orwellian Poll".

PS: Buy the way this is not a ultimatum it's choice which I can excercise as a alternative to disrespect. In answer to your question the topic which is supported by the original post was not selection, inclusion, implementation, coding or comparison it was (possible) 'qualification'. As gatekeeper the other issues are your department and I have noted this numerous times. I agree with the moderator that the thread is hijacked (which they communicated without disrespect) by others by you and now by me by responding to your immature heckling (this is not stand-up comedy). At least for my part, when I relax in front my computer with a cup of coffee it is not a time or place for hostility. The real world has plenty of that.

Nuff said... intermission???

[oiaohm]

meridian.blue Do you have any clue how many fights have been over web browsers around this place? Do you also know how many Phalanx has been in.

You first accused me of things. Unless you call me saying end it due to stupidy first move.

Z98

Why is this topic still alive!?

Your response to this was 100 percent incorrect. Failing to answer questions or issue seams to be your style and attack as response. Moderator will normally ask a question like this before they will kill a Thread. You answer is a really evil thing to be doing. So if after that the moderator closes the thread they are the bad guy. It is totally disrespectiveful to the moderator.

Now that got us really off on a bad foot.
Z98

No, this topic keeps getting revived by people who don't read all the pages of discussion and end up repeating them.

This is true in most cases. But Z98 has not noticed yet is the same people starting the web browser debate as a prior time. Just used your question to kick start it. Just have not caught up with Z98 in irc to point out the guilty parties. Most of them should know better.

Then meridian.blue you attack me and wonder why I hit back.

To be truthful I miss the first page of this debate that was inside topic your first question.

When I am ripping into a few people for trying to high jack a thread. Phalanx should known better joined in 2004 and has seen so far 8 fights over webbrowsers. Haos message was his method of killing off the high jacker in the past. This time around Phalanx intentionally or otherwise set up a line to undo the high jacker stop. Don't step in middle it is not healthy. I most likely will only be taking sections out of people who have been here for at least 3 years.

All your attacking as done is basically high jack your own thread and take it off topic.

Answer questions don't try to force peoples will meridian.blue. You accused me of something I also find disgusting. Being compared to MS. I am nothing like them.

Here's the most warped one I am not a Redmond refugee. You keep on taking wild guesses what I am. I have been a Linux user since 1994 and coder for internal company projects on Linux since 1998. Why am I hear. I want a secure OS to replace windows one way or another. So I don't have to be fixing up messes all the time.

When Z98 asks the question "Why is this topic still alive!?". Answer with a valid answer if the thread should be kept open. Else don't answer. No one answering Z98 has to do nothing or high jackers alone answering is a clear sign to Z98 to lock the thread.

[meridian.blue]

Your response to this was 100 percent incorrect.

Then meridian.blue you attack me and wonder why I hit back.

To be truthful I miss the first page of this debate that was inside topic your first question.

Dialogue finally...

First in life, it is never what you want that causes problems... it's how you want it. What you misperceived as attack was response to failure to demand clarification or offer it without "savaging". The moderator did what you are attempting now... giving context and dialogue. What is refreshing is that you have finally read my initial post. The error the moderator made (which was acknowleged as you have done) is the same as you basically... not reading the initial post. So my response is 1000% correct. That acknowledgement is duly noted. As far as respect goes you cannot demand it unless you offer it and that is not possible while "savaging". Your solution is "savaging" mine is dialogue. Please note the latter is more civilized, hence my civil response. This is a forum not a boxing match... I am not a opponent only a different point of view. In regard to Redmond refugees you quote me out of context this refers not to the exception ('you' who's motives are unknown to me) it refers to the rule (everyone who's fed up which includes me who's disgust goes back to DOS 2). It was a rseponse provocated by "savaging" relating to the teeth threat to show I have teeth too.

Nuff said... over and out.

[oiaohm]

Just for future reference. I am not the exception about not being a Redmond refugee.

We have a few different types.

Linux/Freebsd types. So far in fact that Reactos has a build system for them. Motive in that camp is mostly 3 things. Sick of having to fix up windows systems after they are dead form security problems. Curiosity how a OS whos base design was developed by someone who really knew what they were doing got so screwed up. As well partly mixed between if these people are brave or insane for attempting what they are doing. Of course we respect them just the same.

Security consultants kinda the same as the linux/freebsd guys they just want something solid to change there clients over to.

Windows Developer. These knowing more about the internals the platform they are coding on would be useful. Of course they are not a Refugee they are more like a visitor. Come look here to improve the code they produce for windows platforms.

The quick fix finder. Ie these are partly hated since they come here and expect ros to be working perfectly straight up. Don't even read the front page normally and post here complaining.

The money saver who are just here in the hope of saving money on licences. But are more than willing to buy MS products.

Finally the Redmond refugees. Who hate windows and are not prepared to make the jump to another OS.

The redmond refugees are less than about 15 percent of the people here. Highest percentage are Windows Developers. A few of them personally don't like me. Because I cannot be made say Windows is better than Linux (Just wait one of them will miss quote this one on me).

Hate of Windows Linux Freebsd... around here can kinda get you into trouble. Note with those three you would be directly attacking some of the developers.

Do me a favour don't presume meridian.blue. So far your rate of presuming correctly has been way off.

You don't want Haos ripping a program apart either. If Phalanx was allowed to push the issue that is what Haos would have done. It would have been way way worse than our mixup. Ie simply to prove the point no matter how good you think a program is someone can always find defect with it. Also proving what I way trying to say sooner. ie it was not the time closer to need having one of those flame wars is worth while. Last time Haos did that it caused 15 page flame war.

Really part of the problem you had not seen the prior battles if you had you would perfectly understand why I was stopping it out. Note even closing threads would not stop them. All they would do is start new threads.

Also your answer to Z98 was also what they did then at the start of the new thread as well as abuse each other abuse the moderator for blocking there thread. I don't want to see the forum back in that hell. It got so bad that none of the developers were ever found in the forum because they did not want to put up with the abuse. Note Z98 was not the moderator at that time. To be correct it pre dates Z98 even being in the forum. It is the one thing that does worry me. Can you at least tell me in future you will not do that again meridian.blue we don't need that bad behaviour back in here.

Ie part of the problem was bad memories.

[meridian.blue]

Do me a favour don't presume meridian.blue. So far your rate of presuming correctly has been way off.

Indeed you have a wealth of knowledge I find quite useful. In regard to presumption again you presume I presume when you quote me out of context. I'm not quite sure why, but your response to my contexts 'appears' at least to be the result of being provocated by others constantly to "savage". Again, I am not a opponent nor do I care to be because it holds no meaning for me. My preference is dialogue (exchange of ideas and information) not debate. If you wish clarfication, ask. The optimum question would be... "What do you mean?" I believe if more people asked that question the world would have less wars. The Redmond metaphor does not relate to ROS, you or this project. It describes my options and those who chose the same which regardless of reason is one group (ubuntu being one option for that group). It was a response to "savaging" to show I have teeth (the option to go where I am celebrated not tolerated). Now that we have dialogue this is not a issue. That is my context change it to something else then I am misquoted. If it appears vague then ask what I mean. It would be my pleasure to explain.

[oiaohm]

I think we have a minor context problem. I am reading your English different to the way you seam to be saying you are expecting it read. I am not use to someone answer what I have said and what in there not being targeted at me. Not use to general calls being mixed into the answer. Its not exactly miss quoting. Its a context clash. I am expecting one context you are giving a different one. Now that is like 100 percent sure of starting a fight. Now the context problem came in here to I started off with that message targeted at 1 person you presumed it was everyone before him.

Next part of the problem is that I can see what is coming in some cases. So send a message to stop it dead. Normally very blunt sometimes worse when the person has seen exactly where its going. This comes with time around the forums. After a while you know exactly where a line is going because its been repeated far to many times.

Of course there is the odd error. Were someone puts the foot straight in something that use to be a major sign of trouble. Ie you suggesting that moderator could kill thread if it was off topic.

Its that particular response that got my teeth really out and very reduced mercy.

I really should explain how that response gets abused. 1 person would direct a message at the moderator openly challenge to kill the thread. When the moderator did. The 2 person would call the moderator the 1 persons puppet for doing what the 1 person said. Now if the moderator did not person 1 or others could still abuse the moderator for being ineffective. Even that its not true people can use stuff like that to damage the moderator credibility. Basically it sticks the moderator in a no win situation. It is better to pm the moderator about it at least that way it remains appearing to be 100 percent the moderators selection. Just be a little careful with things like that. Flamewar is so bad. Everyone disrespecting the moderator this place will turn into a riot it. Once a forum has gone that way only way to save it is to be 100 percent nasty and bad both taking part in the stunts like that. Most of the good people are forced away and the place just gets progressively worse.

I really do not think you really did not understand what you were risking by your actions. Lot of work latter this forum has been turned from a riot to at least a somewhat decent forum. It can attempt to slip back to being a riot fairly quickly.

I guess you have never had the to clean up a out of control forum or seen how people get into cycles destroying more and more of the moderators credibility until either the moderator quits or turns savage and mercy less. Its about the only way to get that back under control and in time it will improve to the point where the ros forum is now. So this place is not 100 percent nice but is slowly getting there.

Just good advice beware some topics not tightly defined can cause some of that chaos to reappear and risk people going for blood. Just happens web browser is about the worst. Luck was against you there are 100's of other topics you could have picked with a low high jack risk. Even a different wording would have slowed it down a bit. "Web browser licensing restrictions." Even better would have been to put it general in the topic about third party licensing and used Web browser as a example. Most likely would have stopped the high jacking off the start line. Of course I don't blame you for this but we all hate our thread high jacked. Anything you see explode around this place take note of its topic. Safest topics here contain exactly the question you need answer to.

Yes from being a moderator at different times in different forums kinda hits me at core if someone is setting the moderator up for a no win situation. Its just something I am still too touchy about. Note years latter still touchy. Reason why I am not safe to be a moderator any more in anything other than an out of control forum were use of all tools is required without mercy. Lot of good moderators end up like me. Once scared in mind that way is really hard to undo. Of course that also makes me overly protective of good moderators at times. Better for me to take the damage than the good moderator. I am already damaged.

Set of events. In one way its a good example. We did not have a single point of failure. Problems inside companies are always that way. It will normally be a set of smaller errors adding up to one massive stuff up. Yet a lot of companies fire the boss and leave all those small errors there to come back and bite at a latter date. All well designed company systems should have checks and balances so even if 1 point fails another point should correct. Z98 normally pulled me up when I have turned way to savage. Your context might have caught him out a little too. He knows I don't tolerate being attacked trying to cool me off completely then is not going to work.

Neutral context is something we have not seen in this forum for years. So yes you are going to catch a few people out with it. My bad luck I had to be first caught out by it. To be exact almost 7 years since a person using 100 percent Neutral context has been here.

[meridian.blue]

That was at lot to take in but I think I see the big picture. My ignorance of the big picture is lack of knowledge of the politics which may exist also in other forums also but not this pervasive. It will likely be the reason why I will cease to post threads. I'm used to hijackers and trolls but in this environment I must say I'm out of my element. Better for me not to post at all. I don't have the required energy or expertise. Likely because I will attempt to appeal to reason which probably is not popular for certain persons. Unfortunately for me, I'm attracted to the childhood concept of everyone with a postive contribution receiving a trophy so that there are no winners or losers. I'm not a fan of the "Highlander" scenario. I guess that makes me too idealistic to post. I'm also not keen on microscoping titles or 'dumbing down' my posts by generating 'fluff' (passive threads) in order to avoid stepping on land mines that I probably will step on anyway. The situation 'seems' like d@mm3d if one does or d@mm3d if one doesn't because everyone won't be happy. It 'appears' no matter what... if someone is determined to fight they will even if a attempt is made to explain and qualify every last syllable as nonperjorative point of view.

[oiaohm]

Opps wrong page.