Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious
Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious
Posted Apr 10, 2011 5:13 UTC (Sun) by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)Parent article: Groklaw shutting down in May
I'm still not 100% sure that Groklaw will really shut down soon. Groklaw's announcement could be a last-gasp effort to provoke an outpouring of support (in various ways, shapes and forms) from companies and community members.
But if it actually does, which is of course very likely, the primary reason will have been that Groklaw clearly lost relevance. It was largely a "one-hit wonder" in connection with SCO, but over the last several years I think it has just become a small echo chamber -- almost like a sectarian group that unconditionally follows a mystery-shrouded leader. Seriously, who else in the whole open source context did never reveal his or her identity to the slightest extent? There was something that the person or team hiding behind the "PJ" avatar had to hide.
With an objective, rational approach it was easy to understand that "PJ" did not strike an acceptable balance between privacy and publicity. Someone who participates in highly public debates, claims to provide more transparency about suspected connections and comes up with conspiracy theories concerning people like me (although my background is well-documented and verifiable) must also present themself at some point at a public event and explain their professional background. But a lot of people thought that their "savior" should not be called into question and not be subject to the same scrutiny "she" wanted to subject others to. I always found that absurd.
When the avatar named "PJ" received an EFF award (which "she" never personally accepted in order to continue to shroud "herself" in mystery), the number of people congratulating "her" in the related discussion thread was fairly limited. When I read discussions on other topics, I also had the impression that the number of distinct participants was small.
On the occasion of the announcement of Groklaw's shutdown (which for now is just an announcement), many people appear to think only about the good that Groklaw presumably did and tend to forget its dark side: its devious censorship ("sandboxing") of user comments designed to suppress dissent and fabricate consensus in its community in the eyes of third parties.
There are other negative things to point out as well. For example, a headline that cheers a patent aggressor on ("IBM is free to sue the pants off TurboHercules") was very shocking to see almost exactly a year ago. Equally shocking was the fact that Groklaw made a demonstrably false claim about IBM's patent pledge and didn't correct the article even after user comments highlighted the "error", which was clearly intentional as far as I could see. Groklaw quoted from an IBM statement made months before the patent pledge was announced and then claimed the related statement was made "when" IBM announced the pledge (and limited its scope). Anyone who clicked on the links could actually see the dates, but Groklaw knew that most people wouldn't do so, and wanted to mislead as many people as possible. That claim was the first statement in that article on TurboHercules.
Only the small group I mentioned will truly miss Groklaw if and when it's gone. It no longer served an important purpose. More recently, Groklaw has been all about yesterday's problems. Today, the big issues connecting open source and intellectual property are primarily about patents. Groklaw often didn't see the forest because of all the trees, or it didn't want its audience to see the forest and therefore confused people with all the trees (such as absolutely irrelevant procedural detail)and set up some artifical trees in addition, including fake trees like the IBM patent pledge limitation I mentioned above.
Today's most important IP issue in this industry relates to the major smartphones disputes, and I will continue to develop material like these battlemaps and reference lists -- stuff that Groklaw never managed to do during all those years.
Posted Apr 10, 2011 6:11 UTC (Sun)
by dkite (guest, #4577)
[Link]
It was one of these situations where an individual can make a difference, and she did.
You have your battles, and I hope they go well for you. You need a PJ to publicize the issues and gather support to your cause.
I haven't read Groklaw since the Novell stuff. I as many others were interested in the news that was presented, the availability of the documents, and the news of the decisions. Someone spent hours putting it all together. I appreciated the work, and wish PJ well in whatever she wants to do.
Posted Apr 10, 2011 6:22 UTC (Sun)
by freebird (guest, #43129)
[Link]
The stated reason for closing the site is that it's over,
The only sense I can make out of your ranting is that it's all sour grapes.
Posted Apr 10, 2011 7:34 UTC (Sun)
by brianomahoney (guest, #6206)
[Link] (10 responses)
The fact is that PJ is widely respected for her hard work and balance,
You are NOT.
Posted Apr 10, 2011 7:41 UTC (Sun)
by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
[Link] (6 responses)
Posted Apr 10, 2011 7:56 UTC (Sun)
by swetland (guest, #63414)
[Link] (4 responses)
*polite clapping*
One might find allegations about "propaganda meant to misinform a community" especially ironic given this context. I certainly do.
Who do you work for again, Mr Mueller?
Posted Apr 10, 2011 8:07 UTC (Sun)
by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
[Link] (3 responses)
I publish my own opinions only and we've had the question before.
Posted Apr 10, 2011 8:54 UTC (Sun)
by job (guest, #670)
[Link]
Posted Apr 10, 2011 9:58 UTC (Sun)
by stumbles (guest, #8796)
[Link]
Posted Apr 13, 2011 2:52 UTC (Wed)
by CChittleborough (subscriber, #60775)
[Link]
Posted Apr 10, 2011 16:56 UTC (Sun)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Do you *try* to come across as unpleasant, sneering, and jealous, or is it native talent?
Posted Apr 10, 2011 12:30 UTC (Sun)
by pjm (guest, #2080)
[Link] (2 responses)
I don't know what balance is intended by the above, but I largely stopped reading groklaw precisely because it seemed that the coverage was unbalanced: that groklaw was good at digging up what appeared to be problems in SCO's case, but you wouldn't want to rely on it for a balanced, unbiased portrayal of the issues.
Note, that's just my own assessment, made with the amount of care appropriate to readership decisions. (Someone else said that the bias was more generally a pro-IBM bias; I wouldn't know about that.)
I should add that if groklaw is just the product of an individual writing in their spare time about something that interests them, then maybe that one-sidedness is just a reaction to some underhandedness on SCO's part and an attempt to redress the balance. I.e. the lack of balance doesn't necessarily reflect badly on the person; but whatever tributes you may pay to the groklaw work, I wouldn't praise its balanced writing myself.
Posted Apr 11, 2011 22:45 UTC (Mon)
by Wol (subscriber, #4433)
[Link] (1 responses)
The problem with modern reporting is that, if the issue under discussion is black-and-white with only one sensible position, the media feel *obliged* to give "balance" by quoting some kook with a clearly unhinged agenda, but they quote him in all seriousness!
Fortunately, gravity was discovered many years ago, otherwise the press would be fawning all over "karmic levitation" to try to give "balance" to the "alleged discovery"!
Cheers,
Posted Apr 12, 2011 22:27 UTC (Tue)
by pjm (guest, #2080)
[Link]
However, given the slanging match that seems to have swallowed the rest of the comments on this article, I don't think we'll gain much by discussing ideals in journalism any further here.
Posted Apr 10, 2011 8:17 UTC (Sun)
by bjacob (guest, #58566)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Apr 10, 2011 8:24 UTC (Sun)
by bjacob (guest, #58566)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 11, 2011 0:24 UTC (Mon)
by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
[Link]
So not useless at all. Unethical and manipulative..but far from useless.
It's actually sort of refreshing to see someone quoting themselves without the typical layer of indirection. It's a very Donald Trump sort of thing to do. And by that I mean "classy{tm}."
-jef
Posted Apr 10, 2011 9:49 UTC (Sun)
by Felix_the_Mac (guest, #32242)
[Link]
On the other hand Florian Mueller is an unpleasant piece of work as demonstrated by his comments in this thread.
Posted Apr 10, 2011 14:57 UTC (Sun)
by tgall (subscriber, #217)
[Link] (29 responses)
The initial lauch of Growlaw was most welcome. What wasn't to like? It was a playful mix of legalinformation and a sort of "stick it to the man" attitude.
Over time however the hiding of PJ does seriously make me doubt "her" existence. To remain anonymous seems contrary to open source principles, at least if you consider transparency or open communication part of those principles.
In some ways it's like accepting code from Anonymous. PJ's "code" was great "code", it seemed to hit the mark, and there was quality there, but you have to wonder about who is behind the mask. There is no reason for PJ to remain anonymous. The SCO battle has been won, stand up, take your bow, accept your awards, good heavens do the open source world a favor and speak at a few conferences.
The patent war however is not over. Nor are the lawsuits which could have substantial affect on open source, consider the many cases surrounding Android. If anything the need for Groklaw is as great as when it started, at least the concept of supportive analysis involving open source legal matters.
But here's the thing, if the only motivation of Groklaw was to vet the circumstances around SCO, Microsoft and Novell it certainly did that. What if PJ was actually being paid to do so? Case over, no more pay, no more website. Does it devalue the work? No, no more than Kernel engineers going to work for a company. If anything it does define an altruistic work vs a sponsored one that might reflect the desires of the sponsor. Without the removal of the anonymous mask we are but left to wonder.
Posted Apr 10, 2011 16:58 UTC (Sun)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (25 responses)
(And so what if she was? Did it make what she said less accurate?)
Posted Apr 10, 2011 18:01 UTC (Sun)
by foobarinator (guest, #74231)
[Link] (24 responses)
In this way, the censorship was not any different than what Sarah Palin's facebook moderators do. The only narrative allowed on the form is the one that agreed with the site's owner.
There is a simple experiment that anyone can try on their own, running some of the online statistical gender detectors on Groklaw's writings, this is one:
http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php
or:
http://bookblog.net/gender/genie.php
Some of the entries are definitely written by males, while some others are definitely written by females.
PJ liked to run hatchet jobs on anyone they saw as an enemy of their cause, digging personal information and trying to smear them charges of guilt by association. Yet, for someone that demanded that others be transparent, never disclosed its funding source.
Posted Apr 10, 2011 18:35 UTC (Sun)
by mpr22 (subscriber, #60784)
[Link]
I think you mean "appear by the statistical analyses of these sites to have probably been written by", not "are definitely written by". From one of the very sites you cite:
Posted Apr 10, 2011 23:59 UTC (Sun)
by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639)
[Link]
Now I know we live in a facebook survey dominated era of information gathering and that survey's which porport to tell you which muppet your are or which Harry Potter character you are are highly accurate and scientificly proven mechanisms for divining essential truths about one's self. But wow, these gender analyzers don't seem to be up to that level of accuracy.
But if you will indulge me...
These gender analyzers are patently stupid. Ranking works like "with" and "we" a feminine while ranking "a" and "are" as masculine. Are you freakin kidding me? Basic English grammar constructions scored for gender. Moronic.
The people who create such scoring should be ashamed. What's next we are going to go in and start scoring the syntax of python scripts for gender? Clearly the itemize() call is feminine while the enumerate() call is masculine.
Anyone who holds these things up as a credible way to decipher gender in a writer deserve to be sentenced to a remedial refresher course in basic English grammar and syntax with their mental peer group of 8 year olds.
-jef"Apologizes to Ms. Bacon for dragging her into this in an effort to define the good name of Mr. Jones"spaleta
Posted Apr 11, 2011 5:31 UTC (Mon)
by eru (subscriber, #2753)
[Link] (1 responses)
I have been following Groklaw since the beginning (admittedly less frequently lately, but daily or more often in the early years, when it seriouosly looked like SCO will bring Linux down), and I don't recall PJ ever having dug up actual personal information about anyone. She did try to find out about business connections, current and prior employers, and public comments, which is stuff that is very relevant in judging the expertise and biases of the characters in the drama. But I don't think those can be considered personal information in this context.
By contrast, to see the worst example of the kind of digging the opposite side did, look up the Maureen O'Gara case in Google. One link here.
http://www.informationweek.com/news/software/infrastructure/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=163104408.
Posted Apr 11, 2011 17:25 UTC (Mon)
by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75)
[Link]
PJ didn't just refuse to look up other people's personal information. She was very careful to redact personal information from the documents she was citing, even though in many cases the original document was available for anyone who really wanted to know. She bent over backward to protect other people's privacy, which is what you'd hope for- but sadly too rarely see- from somebody who wanted her own privacy respected.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 0:50 UTC (Thu)
by jjs (guest, #10315)
[Link] (19 responses)
1. I doubt much of those tools - I've seen too many errors.
2. Some of the entries were written by males, some by females. While PJ wrote most articles, there are numerous guest articles by experts explaining either technical issues or nuances of the law (by lawyers).
3. I saw many disagreements on Groklaw. While I can't guarantee some disagreements weren't removed, it clearly was not universal. Most of the stuff I saw being removed was not because of disagreements, but because they failed to follow the posting policy, to specifically include language.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 4:45 UTC (Thu)
by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
[Link] (18 responses)
Concerning censorship, yes, you'll actually find that totalitarian regimes like the former German Democratic Republic formally allowed opposition parties and often even give them seats in parliament, but it's hand-picked opposition. Same thing with disagreements that Groklaw didn't censor:
What Groklaw liked best was dissent expressed in ridiculous ways. Those comments weren't censored because they served Groklaw's purpose of fabricating consensus.
What got censored instead were reasonable, perfectly polite, on-topic comments, or links to such material.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 7:54 UTC (Thu)
by jthill (subscriber, #56558)
[Link] (17 responses)
Mistakes, bad decisions, are not always errors of commission. PJ is willing to err on the side of commission. That takes guts because anyone knows it'll excite the real trolls. It draws a lot of attention, and there are really only two sources of information about the decisions she made: the people she banned and Groklaw itself; and Groklaw doesn't say much about it. She wrote at least one article on the general subject, I've been idly poking around for it and haven't turned it up yet, but all in all trolls do their damage by wasting good people's time with pointless characterization and innuendo and drama, and she and her team have better things to do.
It grew to encompass a lot of related things, but Groklaw got its start as an expression of personal affront at what she and many others saw as a blatant scam. But PJ didn't stop with simple perception, and she didn't speak from whatever she had on hand. PJ worked at it, argued in support of her viewpoint with every shred of evidence she could dig up, and then she started getting help.
It turns out that everyone who matters to the case (except, of course, SCO) agrees with her. That would be all the defendants, and the judge of course, and the jury. PJ's opinion itself never mattered any more than mine or yours or the Pope's. The facts she and her crew dug up wound up having an effect: they mattered. That Groklaw was a place to get stuff done mattered. Groklaw was a team, *her* team, and you were on it or you weren't.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 14:13 UTC (Thu)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (16 responses)
Not quite. AFAIR, the way the undesired-comment suppression on Groklaw worked was that from your point of view you were »on the team« – you did get to see your own comment, after all –, but from everyone else's point of view you didn't exist at all, since your comment would be suppressed in their version of the page. Clever ;^)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 14:33 UTC (Thu)
by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
[Link] (14 responses)
You are completely mistaken. I am a subscriber of Groklaw from the very beginning. Even so I did see comments dissapear (seldom, but that could just have been timing). And the few comments I did see deleted were because of blatant transgressions to the site policy (foul language, virulent ad hominem attacks, publishing private details about people), never because of contents (and if you look over the site, you will see many opinions that differ markedly from PJ's). Yes, there have been a few "subscriber only" articles, but mainly surveys on stuff like opinions on archiving the site at the Library of Congress, asks for help with voluminous transcriptions, and other internal(ish) stuff.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 15:11 UTC (Thu)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (12 responses)
This is not what I said. Of course some comments have been removed outright due to PJ's bad-language policy. What I am talking about is comments which, in a perfectly courteous manner, expressed opinions that went against the party line and then silently disappeared from view for everyone except the original commenter (who would then have to resort to looking at the site from another computer to even find out about this).
I used to be a regular Groklaw reader for a fairly long time but mostly stopped doing so after I had this happen to a comment of mine. I'm all for rational, polite discussion and I would have been perfectly able to handle a »You're not welcome, stay away« from PJ – at least then one knows where one stands! Considering that I have lots of uses for my time other than commenting on Groklaw, PJ leading me to believe that my comments have been properly posted while in fact I'm the only person who can actually see them is (in my opinion at least) a bit unfair. I'm aware that for many people PJ essentially walks on water, but it must be said in the interest of balance that the tricky comment suppression mechanism is something which sets Groklaw off from other blogs, and which I personally would not readily associate with the idea of civil, open-minded discourse.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 18:40 UTC (Thu)
by vonbrand (subscriber, #4458)
[Link] (11 responses)
As I said, I followed Groklaw daily (at least) for years, and saw few comments deleted. And never one that "in a perfectly courteous manner, expressed opinions that went against the party line." I saw a lot of comments that went "against the party line," rarely "courteously," and said comments are presumably still to be found there. It should be easy enough to search for Florian Mueller's comments as relevant examples, there were others.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 18:53 UTC (Thu)
by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
[Link] (10 responses)
You can find examples of polite, on-topic comments deleted by Groklaw in this PDF document on Scribd.com, which contains numerous screenshots and, toward the end, references to blog posts and forum comments in which others described similar observations.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 20:31 UTC (Thu)
by jthill (subscriber, #56558)
[Link] (9 responses)
Posted Apr 14, 2011 21:32 UTC (Thu)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (8 responses)
This is what in the business we call an »ad hominem« attack. What happened in the cases cited by Florian also happened to various other people, some of which have spoken up in this discussion. It does not matter that it was Florian who actually went to the trouble of documenting PJ's suppression of undesired comments (»dog poisoner« or not), and he may even have had a personal axe to grind doing so; what does matter as far as I am concerned is that the suppression occurred at all, which is nothing to do with Florian personally. Arguing that Groklaw is PJ's blog and she gets to do what she wants on it, including arranging for tricky and unusual methods of getting rid of comments she personally does not agree with, is fine by me. It's her privilege, and so far nobody is actually forced to read (or comment on) Groklaw. However, in my opinion, this alone disqualifies her as the candidate for immediate sainthood that many people apparently perceive her to be. It may be acceptable on a blog to completely remove comments which contain offensive language, but suppressing politely-worded comments whose content one does not like, in the manner that PJ demonstrably did in various cases, is not behaviour I personally would associate with the owner and operator of an award-winning blog extolling software freedom.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 2:34 UTC (Fri)
by jthill (subscriber, #56558)
[Link] (7 responses)
If you want to see the line between rebuke and ad hominem, step from my post to Mueller's link.
PJ deletes such attempts on sight as the work of trolls, and all your objections amount to is "sometimes she gets it wrong". Endlessly discussing whether any such decision is wrong would also achieve what the trolls were after.
So, therefore, what?
Also, please point out anyone angling to beatify PJ so we can properly mock them. She had a few years of genuine glory, not many people get that. But that's about all.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 6:49 UTC (Fri)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (6 responses)
If the Groklaw definition of a troll is »somebody whose contributions PJ doesn't like«, you may even be right. However, if, for example, in the discussion of the Hercules virtual machine OS licensing/patent issue, the main developer of the actual software in question steps in and tries to present his side of what is factually being discussed, that is not what I would consider »trolling«. If anything, the Groklaw community should have been glad that Jay Maynard took time out of his undoubtedly busy schedule to contribute constructively (by correcting some apparent factual misconceptions on PJ's part) to the site. Instead he gets ejected, essentially because he disagrees with PJ on some things where to an outside observer it is painfully obvious that he is right and PJ is wrong. I wouldn't exactly describe this as »sometimes she gets it wrong«.
As far as »endless discussions« are concerned, I would much rather see a constructive discussion of the actual subject matter at hand than one about whether it was right or not to kick somebody off the site for purely personal reasons. In my opinion, the right thing for PJ to do after Jay Maynard corrected some of her factual errors would have been to apologise and thank him, then move the discussion along in the light of what she'd just learned. What Jay Maynard did was not »trolling«, and painting it as such just to bolster the notion that oh, PJ sometimes hits the wrong button, no big deal, please don't make a large issue of it since that would make PJ look bad, strikes me as disingenious. Kicking somebody off a site should be the very last thing one considers, and definitely not for constructive contributions to a factual discussion.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 11:00 UTC (Fri)
by jthill (subscriber, #56558)
[Link] (5 responses)
Mueller's /. post on the subject was my first contact with his work. I've learned to be suspicious of claims which, if true, would be outrageous, and this one (let alone his blog post, which reeks) had the smell of propaganda about it. So I read the letters. Yup. It's the tired old propagandist's recipe for leveraging confirmation bias: manufactured outrage and vile characterizations based on some more or less subtle misrepresentation, relying on the knowledge that most people when gulled into outrage stop thinking.
And this is just more of the same.
That's so brazen it's actually funny, in a "the other possible explanations are distinctly uncharitable, so I'll regard it as a first-rate sendup of people who've never seriously faced the question, who do you think you're fooling?" kind of way.
So anyway,
Because, as it stands, what been offered so far is most succinctly epitomized as a vast disparity between your public pronouncements and the actual evidence.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 19:17 UTC (Fri)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (4 responses)
Whatever. I'm not opening that can of worms. Let me just state for the record that I believe (and have commented on LWN.net to that effect when the issue was ongoing) that as far as I am concerned IBM is perfectly free to license or not license their software to whoever they want. In my own personal opinion I don't think it would be any skin off IBM's nose for them to offer reasonably-priced no-support licenses to Hercules users (it's not as if people are queuing to replace their IBM z/OS mainframes with PCs) but that is neither here nor there.
Please leave Florian Mueller out of this. My issue is with PJ's suppressing comments by and/or kicking out people she does not agree with, in general. It happened to me and various other people other than Florian Mueller. What Florian Mueller said or didn't say, on Groklaw, Slashdot, or anywhere else, is completely immaterial to the issue at hand.
I just spent way too much time on Groklaw looking at comments on the original article dealing with the TurboHercules issue, and I have failed to see any comment of Jay Maynard's that could fairly be considered »trolling« In fact, given what various other participants in the discussion throw at him he comes across as unusually polite and level-headed (IMHO anyway). I would like to invite anybody who is interested enough in the issue to look at the same article and form their own opinion, lest I be accused of cherry-picking evidence. Ten minutes or so should be enough to get the gist of what is going on.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 21:12 UTC (Fri)
by jthill (subscriber, #56558)
[Link] (3 responses)
If you kept on and on for days offering nothing but accusations on Groklaw as you're doing here, it's no wonder she started killfiling posts. It's just a matter of cleanliness.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 22:57 UTC (Fri)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link] (2 responses)
No I didn't. That was vonbrand. Go check. (Also I'm intrigued that you apparently expect me to point you to some comment of mine that PJ has canceled, as »evidence«. Duh. The whole point of PJ suppressing comments she doesn't agree with is so they're gone.)
Anyway, I'm out of this discussion. I gave up on Groklaw long ago and won't miss it at all; I don't need to waste even more of my life arguing with PJ's fan crew here on LWN.
Posted Apr 15, 2011 23:09 UTC (Fri)
by jthill (subscriber, #56558)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 16, 2011 9:18 UTC (Sat)
by anselm (subscriber, #2796)
[Link]
Nope, that's me commenting on you commenting on Florian commenting on vonbrand, who pointed to Florian's comments. Hardly »opening this conversation«. You're also quoting me out of context.
And this is really the last you're going to hear from me in this discussion.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 15:21 UTC (Thu)
by jubal (subscriber, #67202)
[Link]
I wouldn't know that the comment has been disappeared if not for viewing the article without logging in. Clever indeed.
It's important to realise, that PJ is no saint, she can be indeed highly biased at times and she does have her pet peeves; most of that is visible in her comments, usually. (Bruce Byfield is quite right that the overall quality of Groklaw deteriorated after 2008.)
And it's equally important to understand, that all of the (valid) complaints are mostly of no consequence when it comes to the quality of her work (explaining legal issues, showing how the legal procedures work, etc. etc.)
And, frankly, the venerable Mr. Mueller here is much more venomous than PJ; his style is more similar to the Sam Varghese / Roy Schestowitz type of venom-spitting and hatred-inducing writings.
Posted Apr 14, 2011 19:48 UTC (Thu)
by jthill (subscriber, #56558)
[Link]
Posted Apr 11, 2011 0:28 UTC (Mon)
by tridge (guest, #26906)
[Link]
I really admire the fantastic work she has done.
Cheers, Tridge
Posted Apr 11, 2011 9:41 UTC (Mon)
by linuxrocks123 (subscriber, #34648)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Apr 12, 2011 22:57 UTC (Tue)
by gus3 (guest, #61103)
[Link]
Sure, "just joking." That's easy enough to say after the damage is done.
Yes, there really was a conspiracy against Pamela Jones.
Posted Apr 11, 2011 8:30 UTC (Mon)
by tuxmania (guest, #70024)
[Link] (2 responses)
Frankly Mr Muller, your credibility with the open source movement is nill, especially after the Android debacle where even Torvalds spoke out against you. Its painfully obvious you have a hidden agenda. Nobody listens to your propaganda anymore as time has proven you wrong every single time.
PJ on the other hand has been right all along and despite being told otherwise by the whole media industry she stood her ground and proved by relentless work that she was right. Not in her own words but by digging up evidence in support of what we all already knew. No matter who she is she was right and you and your friends was dead wrong.
Posted Apr 11, 2011 8:54 UTC (Mon)
by FlorianMueller (guest, #32048)
[Link] (1 responses)
I'm in favor of a strong GPL, not against the GPL. I defended the GPL in connection with Oracle's acquisition of MySQL, as you can read here. I believe the GPL should not just be "scrubbed" from GPL'd programs the way Google did it. Torvalds said that Edward Naughton's analysis "seems totally bogus". That kind of statement is a contradiction in itself. Either something IS bogus, then you can say so, or you aren't sure and say "seems", but then it can't be "totally bogus" (otherwise you'd take a clear position). Also, I didn't see a statement from Torvalds that would address certain headers that are not located in the /include section of the Linux source tree. "PJ" has not been right all along. "PJ" said lots of demonstrably false things on various occasions, such as the example I gave here in connection with IBM's patent pledge. "PJ" even said that one isn't allowed to sell GPL'd software. You can read on gnu.org that it is legal. And "PJ" told people all the wrong things about the impact of the Bilski ruling. The fact of the matter is that US courts don't rule any more restrictively after Bilski than they did before. Concerning TurboHercules, "PJ"'s assessment is also different from that of the European Commission, which launched in-depth investigations into IBM's conduct last July.
Posted Apr 11, 2011 10:56 UTC (Mon)
by tuxmania (guest, #70024)
[Link]
When Torvalds also says its ok, my personal picture is pretty much already clear and its you that has to prove your right in detail.
Im sure you can find things where PJ has been wrong considering the scope of the case. What interests us mortals is the impressive percentage of times she has been right, not the few time where she was wrong.
Regarding Billski its no surprise its not enforced considering the amount of lobbying from software companies in the US. Software patents are their last defense against open source and without it they will soon be thrown out on a market where software is priced based on its utility, the money printing press will stop running.
TurboHercules is a sad story where IBM wont support their own stuff if its virtualised ontop of a shoddy product like Windows. From a technical standpoint thats more than reasonable, if not painfully obvious.
Its also very obvious who the driving force is behind TurboHercules. Microsoft is gaming the legal system for all their worth, all over the place.
Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious
Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious
the battle was won, and you criticize the site for having lost relevance?
As if the site owner is not aware of this?
PJ widely respected
Re: "PJ" widely respected
Re: "PJ" widely respected
Re: "PJ" widely respected
Re: "PJ" widely respected
That much I doubt.
Re: "PJ" widely respected
> I publish my own opinions only and we've had the question before.Re: "PJ" widely respected
But, AFAIK, we still haven't had an answer, only vague hand-waving.
Re: "PJ" widely respected
balanced coverage?
balanced coverage?
Wol
balanced coverage?
> Someone who participates in highly public debates, claims to provide more transparency about suspected connections and comes up with conspiracy theories concerning people like me (although my background is well-documented and verifiable) must also present themself at some point at a public event and explain their professional background.Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious
"Citation needed". Why do you state this as a fact, when it is just your personal opinion about how other people should behave? It seems just fine to me to stay pseudonymous, even as a high-profile public writer. And there are numerous precedents for that, too.
> On the occasion of the announcement of Groklaw's shutdown (which for now is just an announcement), many people appear to think only about the good that Groklaw presumably did and tend to forget its dark side: its devious censorship ("sandboxing") of user comments designed to suppress dissent and fabricate consensus in its community in the eyes of third parties.
Since when is it a bad thing to moderate/filter comments on one's own site? You might have personal ethics according to which this is not acceptable, but other people might disagree and in the end this was her own site.
> On the occasion of the announcement of Groklaw's shutdown (which for now is just an announcement), many people appear to think only about the good that Groklaw presumably did and tend to forget its dark side: its devious censorship ("sandboxing") of user comments designed to suppress dissent and fabricate consensus in its community in the eyes of third parties.Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious
Holy cow! Actually, not only your link is just a vague accusation and not a conviction; but actually the source for this accusation, as quoted in this link, is... yourself!!!
Don't you agree, that quoting oneself as citation is useless? And that it only makes things worse, that you used a third party (who quoted you) as proxy for that?
Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious
Florian Mueller
Let's hope that this thread goes to the top of Google's search results for the name 'Florian Mueller'.
It was fun...
It was fun...
Over time however the hiding of PJ does seriously make me doubt "her" existence.
Yeah, perhaps she was a computer program, or a ghost, or a team of IBM lawyers.
It was fun...
It was fun...
Many factors can impact the interpretation from any single person's writing. The content, knowledge of the material, age of the author, nationality, experience, occupation, and education level can all impact writing styles. For example, a woman who has spent 20 years working in a male-dominated field may write like her co-workers. Similarly, professional female writers (and experienced hobbyists) frequently use male writing styles. Gender Guesser does not take any of these factors into account.
The day we let computers tell us what gender someone is.. is the day skynet wins.
Following the logic.... If Jono Bacon says he's me....and these gender guessers says that I'm female....that means... Jono Bacon is a woman.
I even plugged in Jono's own blog entries into the guesser..the verdict is in...Jono is not a dude. That's probably news to Jono as well.
PJ liked to run hatchet jobs on anyone they saw as an enemy of their cause, digging personal information and trying to smear them charges of guilt by association.
Digging personal information, not.
Digging personal information, not.
I don't recall PJ ever having dug up actual personal information about anyone.
It was fun...
It was fun...
It was fun...
It was fun...
Groklaw was a team, *her* team, and you were on it or you weren't.
It was fun...
It was fun...
It was fun...
It was fun...
Not many dog poisoners have the chutzpah to defend their act by pointing out what good steak they use to deliver the payload, and still fewer offer a blatantly poisoned steak as evidence. I suppose that could be called "courage", the quality of having one's heart in it.
It was fun...
It was fun...
Ad hominem is an attempt to reject or discredit what someone offers using something about the person offering it. An allegation may be accurate or inaccurate, flattering or insulting, relevant or pure idiotic noise. None of that will tell you whether it's ad hominem or not. My metaphor was accurate, insulting and relevant, but what makes an allegation ad hominem is the attempt to taint. If you're going to use strong language, please use it properly.
It was fun...
It was fun...
PJ deletes such attempts on sight as the work of trolls, and all your objections amount to is "sometimes she gets it wrong". Endlessly discussing whether any such decision is wrong would also achieve what the trolls were after.
IBM would have to be stark staring insane to license their OS for production use on an emulator -- particularly for use on an emulator being used as last-resort disaster backup. The sheer stupidity of what they were being asked to do is actually more ludicrous than the allegations made about their refusal to do it.
It was fun...
Did these forums get drained of legal knowledge when AllParadox & Marbux left or went silent so long ago? I'm really curious here. I feel like I'm in a dream where we're taking a test and everyone but me slept through all the classes.
Yeah. That's the closing paragraph of a post anent which Mueller devotes an entire section titled 'Baseless allegations of "personal attacks".' Right. Openly presuming a roomful of people are all ignorant posers is a constructive contribution, and following it immediately with "I'm really curious here" isn't going to set off anyone's "kick me, I'm a troll" alarm.
What Jay Maynard did was not »trolling«
So you say. The content of his reply on "Sunday, April 11 2010 @ 01:07 EDT" does not appear in Florian's link. In fact, I don't think there's anything of his in that document. Care to provide any evidence? No explanations, no characterization, no careful framing attempts. Just facts, thanks.
It was fun...
IBM would have to be stark staring insane to license their OS for production use on an emulator -- particularly for use on an emulator being used as last-resort disaster backup. The sheer stupidity of what they were being asked to do is actually more ludicrous than the allegations made about their refusal to do it.
Mueller's /. post on the subject was my first contact with his work […]
Care to provide any evidence? [for Jay Maynard not »trolling« on Groklaw]
It was fun...
kicking out people she does not agree with
Again with the gratuitous characterization, backed by nothing. Again.
Please leave Florian Mueller out of this.
You're the one cited his work as evidence. You get to live with the association.
comments on the original article
(1) that post is still there. (2) people there were treating him very gently. (3) I see him going on and on about "IBM's patent threats", as if IBM made any. They didn't, but he sure is determined to paint it that way.
It was fun...
You're the one cited his work as evidence. You get to live with the association.
It was fun...
No I didn't.
Who do you think you're fooling?
it was Florian who actually went to the trouble of documenting
That's you, opening this conversation.
It was fun...
That's you, opening this conversation.
It was fun...
Yes, I thought I remembered her describing that -- it's one of the reasons I've been hoping to stumble on that article I mentioned. It was long ago now, but as I recall it was very thorough examination of the situation as she saw it. Hers was the first description I recall of what are now called "concern trolls", for instance. What impressed me most at the time was her discussion of what she did before caging or banning people: in at least some cases, she did background investigation.
It was fun...
It was fun...
she is very much a genuine person.
It was fun...
MOG took orders from Blake Stowell
Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious
Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious
Its loss of relevance was obvious and its censorship, notorious