This is my first one in Ages, and I don't remember ever having had one quite like this.
So theres this guy, TheNetAvenger (624455), who took offense to my calling NT and OS/2 related stepchildren. Now, it wans't enough for this guy to disagree. He had read my short simple statement incorrectly, thinking I was a OS/2 zealot or some such nonsense, and thinking that I was saying NT and OS/2 were the same thing, and apparently thinking that I believed OS/2 was superior or some such nonsense. He really went off. It was quite amusing, and would of been completely laughable if not for his truely misguided ideas about where NT came from.
At first, he claimed NT and OS/2 were completely different animals. He even went so far as to claim that IBM sued microsoft, and that MS had to show IBM the source code for NT after having removed any and all sourcecode from the OS/2 project. Go google to see if you can find a reference to this lawsuit - I knew it didn't exist, but I googled for myself with various terms. Lets see what comes up for 'microsoft ibm lawsuit', I'll condense the list of links down into a list of lawsuits for you:
Thats quite a list, eh? but the results were filled with SCO-related results, so maybe I was missing something, and just hadn't seen a reference to it in the first 14 pages of results. So lets modify our search to 'micrososft ibm lawsuit -sco' to remove anything that mentions SCO. Heres the updated list of lawsuits:
Well, we're still getting the wrong material - IBM execs testifying in MS related trials, antitrust suits against MS and IBM by different companies (but mentioend on the same page) - so lets remove the word antitrust, and the word compuware (the comapny that sued IBM for antitrust violations), thus we now have 'micrososft ibm lawsuit -sco -antitrust -compuware', we now get this list of lawsuits between IBM and micrososft:
Ok, well, we're missing the big os/2 term, so lets add it in and try one more time:
And ok, we're done. There was no lawsuit. Apparently the TheNetAvenger realized this, since he never mentioend it again.
It's really quite silly, the only thing the guy has said that had any merit was that I needed to learn how to spell compatibility. compatability was the version I used. Wow, I am wounded. This must be the sort of guy who believes that the quality of your shoes is important, or maybe, just maybe, he has some super impressive browser that has a spell checker built in (like maybe he paid for the jspell IE addon?) - and doesn't realize that others, don't. Or maybe hes just a good speller. I don't doubt the last one - the rudest, most boneheaded people I ever had the displeasure of butting head agaisnt on technical issues were the spellers. I'm not saying all spellers are rude, I'm just say the rude schmucks who have a tendancy to remember facts in a wrong or biased manner, like this gentleman, seem to be spellers.
Ok, so, I provided him with links to backup my statements, and he then proceeded to read them... but with the reading comprehension of a 5yr old. I mean, he actually tried to tell me my linsk backed up his side, when the most detailed link I had, completely destroyed his arguments. Oiy. I threw down the guantlet, I asked him to, finally, come up with some links that prove his side of the story. Nothing yet.
Did I mention that was the worst part? He goes off on these wild rants about how things were this way and that way, and yet he never backs it up. He tells me in his posts to go do searches on the net to verify his information (which I tried to do, to no avail), and yet he can't post a link. He claims the info is all over the net. I can't find it. Maybe the net he uses is in his dreams?
Or maybe its just a net filtered through the MSN search engine and it machinations...?