Sunday, April 02, 2006


Who would have thought? Thom is back.

I’m defying logic? Now, well, let’s see here…

I have a feeling this is going to be too easy.

1) You are arrogant;

Why? Because I "dare" to criticize a diva like you?

2) You ridicule royalism;

You got me wrong here. I don't ridicule royalism, royalism is ridiculous by itself, it doesn't need my help.

3) You are a coward hiding behind anonymity;

I'm not anonymous, I'm Teh Comment (duh). I always sign my posts.

4) You believe in eye for eye, tooth for a tooth (person A did X to me so I’m allowed to do Y to person A);

The saying you are quoting for a second time is eye for eye, tooth for tooth. Do you see the pattern here? To use your terminology: person A did X to me so I'm allowed to do X to person A. Don't they teach basic comprehension at Vrije?

5) You read what you want to read (assuming ‘I guess you are’ as me stating, ‘You are’);

Let's see. On your previous reply you said "I guess you are American?" and then you went on and said "I guess you find the death penalty and undemocratic elections, and wars really modern and unbarbaric?". Well, the second phrase implies that you assume I am American. No?

Yup, sounds American to me.

Again you make a conclusion based on (five this time!) false assumptions. As I said before, basic logic defines that based on false assumptions, all conclusions are true. So yes, that's true.

Now, let’s continue:

1) You can’t spell words that have too many syllables (’sovinistic’?)

My bad. To make up I will write procrastination, multidimensional and retrospection (I promise I didn't use the dictionary).

2) You hide behind anonymity;

All posts in this blog are signed by their author.

3) 'Teh'? Dear god…

I was in a hurry when I was registering at blogger. Don't ask.

Yup, sounds like a 14 year old to me, hence I can address you as ’sonny’.

Be my guest and address me as you like. But 21 years old is not that older to 14.

Since you are too less of a man to just use your real name and face on the internet,

After assuming that I am American and that I am 14 years old, now you are assuming that I am a man?

I had to deduct my assumptions from your postings on your little blog.

It's a good thing that you finally dropped psychology. It was clearly not for you.

Using the above reasoning, I came to some pretty simple conclusions.

"The truth is rarely pure, and never simple."
-- Oscar Wilde

But obviously, I might be wrong.

It actually occurred to you? I'm impressed.

However, we shall never know if you continue to be a coward.

To avoid any further misunderstandings let me explicitly state that I am Teh Comment and this post has been written exclusively by me.

Saturday, April 01, 2006

Defies all logic

For some reason Thom Holwerda didn't like our previous post. Now, truth be told, I'm a big fan of Thom. I read OSNews, his blog, his Sunday Eve Columns and I always find him entertaining. Not for the reasons he would like though. Anyway, let's see his response:

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth… Yeah, now that’s a way to run this world. It will deffo make it a better place!

How did this conclusion come from my previous post is beyond me. Even a small child (smaller than Thom) can realize that not helping the one who screws you has nothing to do with revenge. Screwing the one who screws you is revenge and has nothing to do with OpenBSD and Sun.

Thom however can not see this and makes the assumption that I believe in revenge. We will call this Assumption #1.

I guess you are American?

Let's call this Assumption #2.

I see you ridicule me for being a royalist, calling it old-fashioned.

No, I don't think royalism is old-fashioned. What I meant is that its 2006, we have schools, universities, newspapers and the Internet. People should know better.

I guess you find the death penalty and undemocratic elections, and wars really modern and unbarbaric?

Starting with false assumptions, all conclusions are true. So yes.

Sonny, get a life.

Sonny: used by an older person as a familiar form of address to a young boy. (New Oxford American Dictionary)

OK, I promise not to call you young and immature again. The last thing we need is more complexes for you.

The fact you create a blog simply to reply to tech websites kind of negates the nonsense you post there.

No-one denied that you have no clue about logic.

People are not interested in your opinions, sonny.

And who made you the voice of people?

You are a no name.

No, I'm Teh Comment.

You run off of Blogspot.

Well, we could pay $4 per month for hosting...


No offense, but I doubt that.

People are interested in my opinions.

True, but judging from their replies, not for the reasons you would like.

My many articles, and the replies it spawns on other sites, mean just a little bit more than your blogspot blog.

And they also mean everything for our blog. Without them, this blog would not have been possible.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

Grow up

Theo de Raadt, the master of flames had an interview on Tuesday and the news was covered by OSNews. Thom Holwerda didn't of course miss the opportunity to comment on it. As always his comment was deemed ridiculous (the counter-arguments were rated 5 and 4), so he decided to post exactly the same thing at his blog.

Theo said: "I will say it here — if an OpenSSH hole is found that applies to SunSSH, Sun will not be informed. Or maybe that has happened already."

I’m sorry, but that is just plain childish and extremely unprofessional. It’s like a kid refusing to do anything his mother tells him to because he doesn’t get a cookie.

I guess that screwing the people that help your company for free is very mature and professional. It's just like a baby biting his mother's breast (I love the mother/child analogies).

If Theo wants people to take OpenBSD seriously

Come on Thom... We all know that you are the last person to give advice on how to be taken seriously. Just have a look at your site.

he should stop making pointless comments like this one.

If it wasn't for your comments, we would have never created this blog.

If you really care about security and open source, you help anyone using your software (if that anyone has done nothing to break the licensing of course).

You are confusing "security and open source" with "charity".

If you let personal grudges stand in the way of seeing the bigger picture (*cough*Amiga), then you have no place in the corporate world– or in any world, for that matter.

If the bigger picture is to bend over to everyone who is screwing you, then I'm out of the world too.

Grow up.

So... the guy who drools over expensive cars all day, who is a royalist (for Christ's sake we are in 2006!), who still lives with his parents and who is one of the greatest sovinists to pass the blogosphere, is telling other people to grow up?? (And by "other people", I mean "people who have written code that is being used by millions of users".)

Seriously Thom, next time just watch some porn on the net like all the other kids.

Friday, March 24, 2006

Die Adobe, Die!

Surfing the web is fun. Except when you happen to land upon idiotic geeks from hell, mumbling their inconsistent and ignorant drivel. Case in point? An Adobe lead developer posted in his blog about the difficulties that made Adobe delay a Universal Binary release for Photoshop. This had the geek crowd gathered faster than a pint of blood gathers sharks in the pacific. Here are some of their "comments" and opinions on

It seems adobe wasn't listening when apple "strongly" suggested starting to migrate to xcode.

And why should they?

A company should be able to use whatever IDE makes their programmers more productive. The programmer even states that Adobe tried migrating to Xcode, but found it wasn't up to the task.

Not for big code? you mean like Doom 3 and all the other massive 3D games out? Logic? The Final Cut Studio Suite which is due out this month? And should we not for get Mathamatica which is photoshop for the math world.

Ignorant (and idiot, to top it). 3D games codebases aren't "massive". The releases are large because of textures, sound and stuff. As for FCP and Logic:

a) They are Apple apps, so they knew about the transition MONTHS before Adobe.
b) They are not currently cross platform. They only had to be available for the Mac.
c) Even with all these advantages, the UB versions still took time to develop. FCP is
*due* out this month.

While I appreciate Adobe's attempt to open up a clear and honest discussion between users and developers, I can't help but feel that (in spite of all the perfectly valid issues brought up in the blog) Adobe just can't be bothered to go the extra mile for their customers. Yes, we know there are difficult technological issues. Yes, we know that waiting until CS3 is the easiest route. Still, I don't pay a premium for Adobe software to be treated like a second class citizen.

How are you treated as a second class citizen? Do you think that buying a version of an app entitles you to have it available PRONTO to whatever platform/architecture/OS you might make the transition to?

Sure it is. Adobe writes OS/X software. OS/X NOW runs on Intel chips. It's like if Apple started using "G6" chips and Adobe failed to support them. There would be rioting in the streets from all the Adobe customers.

Adobe has two choices: Get out of the Mac software business, or else tow the line. Half-assing it really helps no one. "I'll get to it when I get to it" only serves to hurt themselves and their customers. It's not like Apple didn't tell them. Hell, Apple has had working Intel OS/X since the very first release. You don't think Adobe has seen these systems? Could it not have had a contingency plan for if/when an Intel chip got used?

First, if Adobe "gets out of the Mac software business", Apple is screwed dead.

A "contingency plan for if/when an Intel chip got used"? You sure know how to run a company.

The ironic part is that there is ALREADY an intel version of Photoshop. They should have been the FIRST company to be ready when the big switch took place. Any cross-platform software company should have a software engineering system that can handle this kind of thing with ease. I could see if they were Mac-only. This is just plain embarassing for Adobe.

No, it's plain embarassing for you. Next?

They really have no excuse. So XCode wasn't up to the task. That's debatable. So what. It's not the only way to compile a program on a Mac. The Auto* group of tools run from a command line and the gcc compiler is the same compiler that XCode uses and is more than up to the task. The project files (config.* and makefiles) are all text based and so are text mergeable. You can run them over a network and use any source code control system you want.

The Auto* tools?!!! You are a dork, go get a girlfriend. Also, you could use some clearasil.

The Mathematica people converted their software in a weekend! With no previous warning even! They flew to Cupertino with an external hard drive on a Friday and had working code on Monday. Are you saying that Adobe couldn't get the same support? And Mathematica is a REALLY old code base too. If XCode could handle that then Adobe is just trying to blow smoke up our collective rear-ends.

Mathematica is based on a virtual machine. It's a different case altogether.

Photoshop is composed of hundreds of compile targets. They just need to compile their one little plugin or framework or dylib or dll or whatever. The real compile can be done using command line tools overnight and pushed out every morning.

The quest for the moron king of internet comments is now officially over.

Apple has been pushing XCode for almost 3 years.
In three years, Adobe couldn't find time or hire one more program er to move it all into XCode?!?!?! --- I don't buy it at all

Then again, you don't buy anything. You are a spotty geek living with your parents.

You need to blame the people that decided to sit on their hands and wait. If they needed more support from Apple, why are we only hearing about this NOW? It's not like it would stay a secret. This is coming out of left field for everybody. Adobe is trying to rewrite history with a little blog-based spin doctoring. The truth is that they made a business decision (not a technical one) to not support Intel until CS3. Why is a matter of debate but it had NOTHING to do with technical impossibilities.

It ain't April first yet, still the fools are here with their little tin foil hats.

If the tools apple gives to one of it's biggest people aren't enough, it's thier job to come to apple and tell them that. This is the absolute first time I've ever heard that (And this sort of info leaks very easily) excuse. If it's true, they should have gone to apple two years ago and said "This isn't enough". Apple could have responded. But no, they decide to slog it, and customers are the ones getting hurt.

Noone is getting hurt but reason. They *TOLD* Apple. Apple receives feedback from many companies. It's not as if Apple can fix XCode overnight, either. It took five+ years to get to XCode 2.0.

A lot of people seem to be missing the subtext here. For more years than I can remember, most third-party Mac apps have been made in Metroworks Codewarrior. It is a great development environment, and many people have said that it equals, if not exceeds MS's Visual Studio in some aspects. The real problem here is that with the move to Intel, Apple is now REQUIRING people to develop EXCLUSIVELY in their substandard proprietary development environment if they want to get native speed. This is going to cause a lot of problems for a lot of developers. I know quite a few Mac software developers who have been using Codewarrior for over a decade. They aren't going to be happy, nor quick, to throw away a decade of code just because Apple has decided to screw over Metroworks, and cut them out of the development market.

Hurrah! The voice of reason!

The whole point of THIS topic was (and is) about Adobe and the fact that they're dragging on providing Unibin versions of their applications.

Myself, I could care less. I haven't used bloated Adobe crap for years.

Which reminds us the "bloated rule": anyone who uses the word "bloated" to describe software is, more often than not, a terminal idiot.

What, Adobe can't write a Makefile ?

You don't have to use Xcode to generate Universal Binaries, all the tools are available on the command line. Xcode is just a front end for common Unix tools like gcc, make, ld, etc.

This blog post wreaks of politics.

Another idiot who thinks he knows all there is to know about professional software development just because he can compile xclock.

What I find sad about this is that Mr. Byer goes way back with the NeXT based technologies, the old fat (now universal) binaries idea is not new to him nor how to generate them and put them together. He *should* be an "old pro" at this kind of thing, but instead plays the n00b blaming Xcode. I am very disappointed.

You are also very stupid. RTFA, will you? He even states why this is different than the Fat Binaries case.

Ok. Get you tinfoil hats out. I've got a theory as to why they decided to wait.

Scenario #1:
They release a Universal version of CS2 now, there would be a massive switch over to intel mac's. They would sell a relatively cheap crossgrade license (the going rate is around $50) and anyone who is serious about CS2 would switch. In a year's time, when CS3 rolls out, there's no great hurry to upgrade because, CS2 does most if not all that people want/need.

Scenario #2:
They wait and release Universal CS3. It's customers keep using CS2 and they ALL buy CS3 (for a lot more than a crossgrade license). They now have all their customers on their new codebase, they made more money, and the buzz surrounding the release can be hyped independently of the Intel Mac. They don't have to share the spotlight. They don't need to worry about customers switching because they don't REALLY have any competition anymore. And if anyone starts wondering what's taking so long, they can just blame the immature tools.

If you were Adobe, with a captive customer base and two ways of squeezing them for money, which scenario would you choose?

Tin foil hat territory. Armchair programmer turned armchair CEO.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Posting to guidelines

1) Start by stating what a worthless piece of shit you are.
2) Apologize for wasting everybody's time.
3) Say how great all the OpenBSD developers are. Optionally you can pick a random developer and lick his ass.
4) Point out that you installed from the official OpenBSD CD that you bought to support the project.
5) Describe your problem.
6) Thank everyone in advance.
7) Apologize again for wasting everybody's time with your petty problems.
8) Again say how much you love the project and all the developers.
9) Append a dmesg output of your system, a dmesg from the latest OpenBSD snapshot, any relevant log files, command outputs, kernel patches you tried, birth certificates, etc.
10) Prepare your self to get flamed. An appointment with a therapist could prove useful.

Sunday, February 26, 2006

The fun continues

We still haven't recovered from Dvorak's editorial and a Linux fanboy tries to extend the fun. Forget switching to Windows, Apple should switch to Linux!

1992 marked the now famous flame war between Linus Torvalds and Andy Tanenbaum over monolithic vs. microkernel design.
I seem to remember this flame. It ended with Linus apologizing to Tanenbaum.

With the release of Mac OS X for Intel, Apple has essentially closed development of Darwin by not releasing the x86 version.

Hmm, they' ve stopped releasing code. That must be a sign of moving to Linux.

This leaves only Apple's internal team of kernel engineers to improve XNU, making it nearly impossible for Apple to compete with Linux or Microsoft in kernel development.

Oh no, all 3 non-Apple Darwin contributors can't commit code anymore. How is Apple going to compete with Linux and Microsoft now?

The Linux kernel has also been ported to more architectures than any other kernel, which gives Apple a good foundation for embedded devices like iPods.

Great reason to make a fundamental change to Mac OS X.

Apple's users could benefit from having a true enterprise server-class kernel, hundreds of drivers, and cool new features like FUSE or Xen.

Apple should switch to Linux for FUSE? Maybe they could also develop iFS, a fun drag & drop way to create file systems. It could be a part of iLife. And last time I checked Xen was not Linux-only.

But I saved the best for the end... Apple should switch to Linux for its drivers? Now, that was hilarious. Drivers for what? Printers? CUPS is already part of Mac OS X. Scanners? SANE can already be installed on Mac OS X. Various USB or FireWire devices? Mac OS X is miles ahead already anyway. What's left then? Obscure PCI-Express cards for PowerMac. Sure, support for that kind of cards would be a great benefit for Apple's users.


Thursday, February 16, 2006

Major league bullshit

Our job, here at Comment Gator ranch, is to comment (duh!) on the imbecilic and generally depraved "opinions" of the IT fanboy crowd. In the main, this crowd consists of spotty, nerdy and drooling teenagers with Atari t-shirts. Due to a severe lack of life, said crowd takes refuge to the various tech sites and online fora, carefully avoiding direct human contact (which is wise). As you can witness from reading Slashdot, OSNews, Mac Daily News, or even this very site, the fanboy mob never ceases to amuse us by producing wonderful monuments of human stupidity. They have, however, an excuse: they are, after all, just uninformed nerds in ther teens. It is a different case altogether when the highest paid journalist in tech, well over forty, provides us with lunatic ravings of such mass stupidity that it curves the space-time continuum.

Commenting on ignorant comments is a dirty job. But today, it's dirtier than usual, for today we are in deep shit. In deep bullshit, to be exact. Here's what I mean:

The idea that Apple would ditch its own OS for Microsoft Windows came to me from Yakov Epstein, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University, who wrote to me convinced that the process had already begun. I was amused, but after mulling over various coincidences, I'm convinced he may be right. This would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop computing.


Computers made of milk would be the most phenomenal turnabout in the history of desktop computing. The only problem, as with the above theory, is that THERE IS NO F*****N CHANCE IN HELL THIS WILL HAPPEN.

Since fools come in pairs, mr. Dvorak (for this is the writer of the exquisite piece of science fiction journalism you just read), took his lead from a certain Epstein (he's no Einstein), a "professor of psychology at Rutgers University". With university professors as informed as this, who needs kindergarden?

But let's see the basis for Epstein's (he's no Einstein) guess:

Epstein made four observations. The first was that the Apple Switch ad campaign was over, and nobody switched. The second was that the iPod lost its FireWire connector because the PC world was the new target audience. Also, although the iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, this didn't happen. And, of course, that Apple had switched to the Intel microprocessor.

Nobody switched? Where does mr. Epstein (he's no Einstein) gets his numbers? Last time I checked, hundrends of thousands of people switched. Furthermore, the switch campaign is not over. Here it is: (Duh!). Except if he meant the tv ad campaings. Well, mr. Epstein (you're no Einstein), tv ad campaigns get stale and new ones take their place. (Duh!).

The second "observation" has nothing to do with the case. First of all, all moderns PCs have firewire. As a matter of fact, most modern PCs have more firewire ports than most Macs do (i.e two). And second, the reason Firewire was dropped was to have a smaller form factor and cut costs. (Duh!)

The third observation states: "although the iPod was designed to get people to move to the Mac, this didn't happen". WTF? Haven't this guy heard of the halo effect? Thousands of people came to Macs due to the iPod/iTunes exposure. And

As for Apple switching to the intel architecture, the reasons are already well known and have nothing to do with switching Macs over to Windows (due to new and improved BIOS replacement technology they don't even run Windows as of now!).
As a matter of fact, it is the reverse that might happen in the future: OSX running in generic PCs, taking over Windows.

It's a dirty job, this commenting business, but somebody's got to do it.

Now, do excuse me: I have to take a shower.