Re: Re: Accusations

[Suresh Ramasubramanian <mallet@xxxxxxx>]

Atul Chitnis rearranged electrons thusly:

> The issue is not about who has done what *for* Linux. This is about
> accusations of having done things *against* Linux (or Linux-India).
 
8< "I am a wounded martyr" post.

> It is because I am tired of this sick campaign. I am being hounded out of
> the Linux community because of personal differences that two people have
> with me. And this campaign is affecting my ability to do what I have been

I didn't have any with you initially - and our relationship was quite cordial
as a matter of fact (if you will examine our past correspondence, all this
"personal difference" started with my responding after several flames you
sent me offlist)

> What I am requesting now is a fair trial - not just for me, but for anyone
> else who would find himself in this unfortunate position.
 
OK - I re-read this post and can see that one or the other of us has had a
communication gap initially, which widened thanks to two things (one - your
having me in your access.db so that we could not settle this offlist, and two,
your mailing my boss as a result of LUG postings, where I do not represent my
org or claim to speak for it in any way)

> I write aimed at intelligent, technically savvy people, people who can
> think for themselves. I have never had anyone throw their underwear at me

I used to enjoy "comversations" myself ... and I have a strong objection to
anybody throwing underwear (even Victoria's Secret) at me :)  

> My attempts at killing the political angle to Linux in India is being
> liberally repositioned by my accusers as *attempts* to politicise it.
 
Hmmm.. this is where the hassle lies ... (more later, below)

> creating this uncomfortable situation) not accept that just because a man
> has an opinion, and is possibly more outspoken than others, he does not
> automatically become the Borg or Emperor Gates?
 
Hopefully not. I have an opinion, and am more outspoken than several others on
this group.  That does not make me Darth Vader either.

> But the success of IT.COM 99 was probably what feeds the flames today.
 
I was not even there at it.com 99 and was not involved in it at all (thanks to
my being in the final stages of an mba at that time).  So, at least in my case,
this is simply not applicable.

> But our detractors used this as further evidence against us (and me in
> particular) by positioning it as a plot to make RedHat the dominant Linux
> distro in India, and that we were using Linux to popularise PCQ (sell more
> copies).
 
I have never posted (or felt, or made) such ridiculous allegations.  And I wish
PCQ every success (I have been, and am a subscriber for the past several
years).  I have nothing to gain or lose by being a rabid opponent of redhat
(and in fact, use it myself).

> And then, of course, there are the Suresh Ramasubramaniams who fling wild
> accusations at me without a shred evidence and only out of personal (and
> admitted) spite.
 
I am sorry.  Back in Oct 2000, when you flamed postings on LIH which don't
concern you, and added me to your access.db after I asked Thaths to judge the
matter (as list admin), I did NOT bitch on this list or any other list.  So, if
I was feeling that spiteful, I would have started a flamewar back then.

> I am tired of this (am I repeating myself?). This is something where no
> one wins - the Indian Crab syndrome at work (one dares to show oneself,

As I recall, the last time you quit LIG was apparently because of a post I made
saying that NIIT and Aptech linux courses were of poor quality, a statement
with which you apparntly disagreed enough to tell me that you quit LIG because
of me (again, offlist).

> the others will drag him down). Unity be dammned - "get that half-German
> bastard" - by any means, fair or (mostly) foul.
 
I have not made any insinuations as to your parentage either.

> Leave me alone, Suresh and Rag00. Leave my friends alone. We too have a

If you will notice, *I* have left your friends (if you imply Biju, Kalyan,
Shanu et al) alone - and in fact, consider them my friends, and damned good
linuxers as well.

> If you have any proof of your allegations, present them. Make your
> allegations themselves clear. Or shut up.
 
Hmmm... take a look at this.  If you will please clarify these points below
(and withdraw your complaints to my boss - cc the list preferably), I will
withdraw my comments as well.  [at the bottom of this mail]

> And stop using your personal differences with my way of doing things as
> "evidence" of my wrongdoing. Stop dragging LI into your personal
> power-struggles.
 
I don't have any power / status / whatever to defend, thank you very much.

> p.s. I should apologise to everyone on LIG for this long post, but on the
> other hand, I think I need not. This is about Linux, and this is a general
> list, meant for non-technical discussions.
 
Excellent - now if you will please clarify these points below:

> Nagendra sez:
> > have anybody tried to talked to PCQ or sombody who is pro-linux in
> > india as I think PCQ spent more money sponsering the Linux section for
> > the 2000 bangaloreit.com than getting a 2mb fiber leases line(12L?)

OK - Nagendra says that PCQ must run it ...

Now, Atul:

> Doesn't make sense - who would administer that? PCQ? Chip? We already
> know that we don't have enough unity to trust ourselves with such a
> task (and noone would trust us either) - remember linux.org.in?
> How would one ensure that such a facility is not misused by the
> maintainers? What kind of accountability could one ensure? And how?

I was following up to Ruchir Tewari btw ... and looks like Nagendra's statement
can be taken as

1. PCQ does it itself (which is what I believe was being advocated in
nagendra's post)

2. PCQ gives some LUG bandwidth and a server (which is what Atul thought -
correct me if I am wrong)

Ruchir's post was:

[quoting Atul]

> How would one ensure that such a facility is not misused by the
> maintainers? What kind of accountability could one ensure? And how?
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[underscores there by ruchir]

Ruchir's reply:

> What exactly are you trying to say. If anybody decides to host
> a server, they are doing you a service. Why and how would they
> themselves misuse it ?

A perfectly valid question.  Nobody ever brought up the subject of misuse
and/or central coordination till you brought it up.  You then took umbrage to
my saying that was scuttled because of overinflated egos on _all_ sides.

your statement:

> > Doesn't make sense - who would administer that? PCQ? Chip? We already
> > know that we don't have enough unity to trust ourselves with such a
> > task (and noone would trust us either) - remember linux.org.in?

to which I responded:

> *That* was scuttled because of huge, overinflated egos on all sides.  All I
> remember of that huge thread is that your comment sounds a lot like "Mr. Pot?
> My name is Kettle, and I think you are black".

You apparently hate being told that you may even be wrong, and reacted
vehemently (and even more rudely) to it, descending to personalities yourself ...

[... and so the thread goes on...]

Still, if you could clarify that point above (and were really not advocating
central control of linux mirrors), then we can both retract our individual
statements and get on with our lives.

	--suresh

-- 
Suresh Ramasubramanian  <-->  mallet <at> efn <dot> org
EMail Sturmbannfuhrer, Lower Middle Class Unix Sysadmin