Linux-Advocacy Digest #804, Volume #25 Sat, 25 Mar 00 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Dish Network's site is DOWN if you don't use M$'s browser. (G Sanders)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (Jeff Glatt)
Re: Weak points ("Bill Sharrock")
Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again) (George Marengo)
Re: Bsd and Linux (Craig Kelley)
Re: From the Horse's Mouth (Roger)
Protest DOJ/Microsoft Settlement (Robert Morelli)
Re: Spoof interview (just kiddin)
Re: From the Horse's Mouth (Roger)
Re: Weak points (Mike Kenzie)
Re: Linux implicit security ("N/A")
Re: I WAS WRONG (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!! ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: Dish Network's site is DOWN if you don't use M$'s browser. (charlie)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: G Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
rec.video.satellite.dbs,alt.satellite.tv,rec.video.satellite.misc,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.infosystems.www.browsers.x,comp.infosystems.www.browsers,comp.infosystems.www.browswers.misc
Subject: Re: Dish Network's site is DOWN if you don't use M$'s browser.
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 17:18:38 GMT
Randy Crawford wrote:
>
> Simply amazing.
>
> I just tried to visit http://www.dishnetwork.com, but every
> time it crashed Netscape within visiting one, or at most two
> links off the main page. (I'm running Linux Redhat 6.0,
> Netscape 4.61, and I'm no newbie to Living Without Windows.)
Yep, it blew up for me too, using NS 4.5 on a Win98 box. I
won't even bother to try my Linux box.
Dish's attitude is incredible on this. With literally MILLIONS
of web pages out there, they are one of the few sites that
haven't figured out how to work around Netscape's well known and
well documented bugs.
Could uncle Bill have spread a little money their way?
--
Gary Sanders
Bait for spammers:
root@localhost
postmaster@localhost
admin@localhost
abuse@localhost
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 17:20:19 GMT
>Ian "The Moron" Tholen
>I just finished telling you that there is a difference between a fact
>and a claim of fact, Glatt. Your "mention" of some alleged abuse and
>some alleged reprimand constitutes the latter, Glatt.
I just finished telling you that it is a fact that it has also been
mentioned several times in this newsgroup that you abused your
employer's computer facilities and were reprimanded for doing so.
>>>Your "mention" of some alleged abuse and
>>>some alleged reprimand constitutes the latter, Glatt.
>>Prove it, if you think you can,
>Simple: you never produced a shred of evidence
Why should I produce evidence to support your erroneous claim that you
did not abuse your employer's computer facilities and were reprimanded
for doing so. That's why you're posting from rr.com now instead of the
University of Hawaii's system.
>to support your claims,
Nonsense. If you knew how to use dejanews, then you'd realize that it
is a fact that it has also been mentioned several times in this
newsgroup that you abused your employer's computer facilities and were
reprimanded for doing so.
>thus both are mere allegations.
Nonsense. If you knew how to use dejanews, then you'd realize that it
is a fact that it has also been mentioned several times in this
newsgroup that you abused your employer's computer facilities and were
reprimanded for doing so.
>> loser.
>How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't presented any evidence.
Why should I produce evidence to support your erroneous claim that you
did not abuse your employer's computer facilities and were reprimanded
for doing so. That's why you're posting from rr.com now instead of the
University of Hawaii's system.
>>>> I suggest that you learn how to use dejanews
>>> How ironic
>> Yes, it is ironic that you suggested someone else use dejanews to
>> verify that something had been mentioned in this newsgroup,
>Illogical, given that there is a difference between someone who allows
>their postings to be archived at DejaNews and someone who does not,
>such as you.
Irrelevant. If you knew how to use dejanews, then you'd realize that
it is a fact that it has also been mentioned several times in this
newsgroup that you abused your employer's computer facilities and were
reprimanded for doing so.
>> when you are clearly unable to use dejanews to verify that it is a
>> fact that it has also been mentioned several times in this newsgroup
>> that you abused your employer's computer facilities and were
>> reprimanded for doing so.
>I just finished telling you that there is a difference between a fact
>and a claim of fact, Glatt.
I just finished telling you that it is a fact that it has also been
mentioned several times in this newsgroup that you abused your
employer's computer facilities and were reprimanded for doing so.
>Your "mention" of some alleged abuse and
>some alleged reprimand constitutes the latter, Glatt.
It is more than a claim. Dejanews clearly shows that it is a fact that
it has also been mentioned several times in this newsgroup that you
abused your employer's computer facilities and were reprimanded for
doing so. Do you not know how to use Dejanews, loser?
>>> , coming from someone who sets the archive flag to "no" to
>>> prevent DejaNews from archiving his own unsubstantiated and libelous
>>> claims.
>>What alleged "unsubstantiated and libelous claims", loser?
>Having more reading comprehension problems, Glatt? Consult borg.com
>for a copy of the formal complaint.
Having more reading comprehension problems, loser? What didn't you
understand about borg's rejection of your "formal complaint" as lies
and nonsense coming from a usenet kook (versus the University of
Hawaii's action to stop you from abusing their facilities with your
posting of nonsense to this newsgroup)?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeff Glatt)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 17:22:27 GMT
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>George Marengo writes:
>>> What I think is irrelevant; the facts are relevant. Do you have any?
>
>> What you think is irrelevant?
>Because the facts are relevant.
And what he thinks is always contrary to the facts, which is why what
he thinks is therefore irrelevant.
------------------------------
From: "Bill Sharrock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:35:54 -0600
Will you for once get off this "it has to be here *right* now or it isn't
worth it" angle? It is a tired rant.
Linux has to support all the hardware under the sun *right now* or it can't
compete. Note that NT doesn't and atm neither does W2K. My sound card has
the same occassional pops and distortion with the latest NT driver as it has
with the drivers coming out of the base RH6.1 install. When is MS going to
improve on that? That's right. Never. And as NT is out the door neither is
the vendor. As they work on the sound drivers for linux, my card's output
has improved.
Linux has to have an office suite that is 150% compatible with Office (i.e.
whatever it is, it had better be MS Office. Substitutes need not apply)
otherwise it won't go anywhere.
Linux has to have RealPlayer yesterday or it will never go anywhere. And not
only that but it has to have the current version coming out at the same time
as the Win version or it'll be too late. Oh, should I mention that the beta
v7 player is downloadable as RPM or nonRPM packages right off the main
download site?
Am I exaggerating stuff you've already posted. Yes, but imo only a little.
And speculating on the near future of linux is *not* a bunch of promises.
Need journaling filesystems? The state of the code currently, what is being
worked on currently and where it is going are available in the source code,
is available in development mailing lists and if one only wants a cursory
update can get it from places like Kernel Traffic. It is open, can be
commented on and debated. Try doing that with some vendor who puts you under
a NDA and makes no promises that what they show you currently will be what
they actually give you.
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't think anybody would really argue that point. Same goes for
> multimedia/digital audio/video.
>
> Problem is Windows/Mac have all the toys NOW and Linux has a bunch of
> promises.
>
> Steve
>
>
> On Thu, 23 Mar 2000 17:15:32 -0600, Codifex Maximus
> >
> >For an impressive demo, try PARSEC. It is an excellent peek at what
> >Linux can do... I'd say Linux is an excellent gaming platform too!
>
>
------------------------------
From: George Marengo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bob shows his lack of knowledge yet again)
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 17:26:14 GMT
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 16:07:08 GMT, "Mike Ruskai"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 21:57:05 GMT, George Marengo wrote:
<snip>
>>OS/2 simply didn't have the software selection that I was looking for,
>>and I knowingly traded off stability for application availability.
>
>Going by the few messages I saw from you, I thought you may have lost your
>sensibility, because you seemed to be suggesting that you were a die-hard
>OS/2 supporter, who left due to IBM's lack of support.
>
>Obviously that's not the case, but you should be aware of the impression
>you're leaving.
Thanks for the feedback. No, I'm not a die-hard supporter of any OS.
The OS is simply a means to an end for me -- using software that I
want or need to use.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.linux.development.apps
Subject: Re: Bsd and Linux
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 25 Mar 2000 10:43:04 -0700
"Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In comp.os.linux.development.apps Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : "Peter T. Breuer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> :> Gordon Moore himself then goes on to refer to the same idea. Try
> :> looking in the dictionary of computing.
>
> : Let's get to the heart of the observation:
>
> : Gordon Moore agrees that processor speeds double every 12 to 18
>
> No he doesn't. He says something else again. Check.
http://www.intel.com/intel/museum/25anniv/hof/moore.htm
And again, from Moore's own mouth (not some "PR guy"):
We can expect to see the performance of our processors double every 18
to 24 months for at least several years.
> : months. He doesn't say that it is "a 40% increase" as you claimed.
>
> What's your problem with this? If you take the 100% increase in chip
> transistor numbers every 18 months, and assume that represents density,
> then you get 40% speed increase from that alone! Then you get other
> speed increases from improvements in technology. Then you get more
> again from technology jumps (Moore says that he estimates there are
> 5 more to go).
>
> I don't recall the last technology jump. But my 2-year old P2-450
> was not the fastest available in its day, and it is not half as fast as
> the fastest available today.
Except the P2/450 came out in August of 1998.
I can buy 1Ghz processors 18 months later.
> : It's a reason not to trust traditional UNIX DES-based crypted
> : passwords.
>
> Calculate the numbers.
Distributed.net already did that. :)
--
The wheel is turning but the hamster is dead.
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: From the Horse's Mouth
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 17:53:37 GMT
On 23 Mar 2000 14:28:16 -0500, someone claiming to be Norman D. Megill
wrote:
>I did discover that Gateway now has a web page describing the 2300XL
>installation procedure:
>
> http://www.gateway.com/support/techdocs/portable/2300/30718.shtml
>
>You will see that it follows my procedure quite closely, including 10
>reboots during the whole process.
9 -- 5 of which can be eliminated by rearranging the steps, or typing
a command rather than rebooting.
>Strictly speaking their procedure is incomplete, since the first FDISK on
>a new machine will require setting labels to uppercase to workaround an
>FDISK bug, which they do not show;
You misspelled "to workaround a problem with the way they originally
partitioned the drive," which since it is not mentioned I would guess
that they no longer use that scheme.
FDISK, by design, does not handle lower case volume labels. You may
call this a limitation, which it is, but it is not a bug, anymore than
it is a "bug" that out of the box, Linux does not run Windows
programs.
>they do not show how to workaround
>FDISK bugs if the partitions are corrupted;
Again, limitations in the tool, not bugs.
And they also do not show how to workaround the box catching fire: it
is beyond the scope of the doc.
BTW -- * your * procedure does not cover every possible failure
scenario -- for example, what if something has happened that one of
the diskettes you use has gone south?
>and they do not show the
>details of the driver Wizard bug where it produces error messages
>because it "forgot" the driver location you specified earlier.
This is not one you specified in your repost -- to exactly what are
you referring here?
>Most
>users could probably deal with the last, since you soon discover you
>just have to give it the driver location again. For the FDISK problems
>I guess they expect you to call Gateway support.
Well, if you had a corrupt partition, that would be an extraordinary
situation on which I would guess they would like a call
>Also, in six places they just tell you to "follow the on-screen
>instructions", which I suppose is adequate. In my procedure I made
>these steps explicit so I could verify as I performed them that the
>installation was proceeding as expected. I also put in my own warnings
>or comments, such as the dire consequences of clicking OK instead of
>Apply at the end of the video driver installation, to help me keep alert
>at critical points.
Which they don't mention at all -- which if it were as dire as you
have claimed, they would.
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 11:09:14 -0500
From: Robert Morelli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Protest DOJ/Microsoft Settlement
As most of you have probably already heard, Microsoft has faxed a
settlement proposal to the DOJ. I believe the issue is very relevant
for the Linux community. While I think that Linux's survival is
inevitable, the future of Microsoft could have a significant impact
on how the Linux market develops, how widely Linux is deployed, how
well it is supported by commercial software companies, and what
obstacles will confront Linux developers and users. On a broader level,
the outcome of the MS/DOJ case will set a precedent with implications
for the future behavior not only of Microsoft, but of all other
software companies. The problem is that according to the press reports
the proposed settlements are very weak. For instance, MSFT surged yesterday
on the news.
If you disagree, fine. I don't care. If you agree though, let the DOJ know.
The email address for comments is
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(despite appearances, that's a DOJ address).
Details are not yet available, but from what's been leaked, it's clear
that there has been very little progress. Microsoft is offering essentially
nothing; it apparently expects a 1994 style consent decree with no punitive
effect for past abuses and only nominal future restraints. One remedy which
wasn't mentioned, but which I particularly fear, is an opening of the
Windows source code. I fear Microsoft will put this on the table in a mock
last minute concession. I strongly oppose open sourcing Windows, as I think
many Linux users should do. First, Windows is laden with legacy compromises
and other weaknesses. Put simply, it's probably garbage. Releasing the source
could also be done in many ways that would only benefit Microsoft and burden its
competitors with integration tasks that would only tighten the Windows grip on them.
The articles are stating that the DOJ has lost some of its resolve and is
backing down from trying to break up MS. One article hinted about the 2000 election.
One thing I've noticed is that Bush has a "high technology advisory committee"
with Microsoft's CFO as one of its members. Bush is a goofball who doesn't even
know the names of the important world leaders, so he obviously isn't talking
high tech with these folks. On the other hand, what he lacks in brain power
he makes up in dollars. Bush probably has a cozy relationship with MS.
In any case, this whole thing is very disappointing.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (just kiddin)
Crossposted-To: rec.humor
Subject: Re: Spoof interview
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:03:27 GMT
On Fri, 24 Mar 2000 12:12:38 GMT, "NNTP" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> the beautiness (does it spell so ?)
>
Only if you want to draw the attention of the Heinzes and Snarkies of
this world.
Elisabeth
beautinessless
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: From the Horse's Mouth
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 18:07:01 GMT
On 25 Mar 2000 09:21:44 -0500, someone claiming to be Norman D. Megill
wrote:
>I loved Roger's response to the FDISK bugs:
>
>>And you misspelled "due to design decisions, FDISK does not gracefully
>>handle every possible situation, so there are rare instances where a
>>partition cannot be removed."
>
>That sums up MS's attitude quite nicely. FDISK is not a big program,
>they've had many years to fix it, and a competent programmer could
>probably fix it in a couple of weeks - so what is the big deal for them?
They don't consider it broken just because it does not deal with every
possible scenario -- they have other tools which will.
>They could even look at Linux fdisk to see how to do it right, if they
>are incapable of figuring it out on their own. The point is they just
>don't care because they don't have to.
Because, for what the tool is designed to do, there is no need to have
it deal with lower case volume labels.
An analog modem will not work on a digital line. The manufacturers of
such have had years to correct this, and can look at ISDN modems to
see how to do so. Why haven't they?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
Subject: Re: Weak points
Date: 25 Mar 2000 18:12:46 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mike Kenzie)
"NNTP" ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) writes:
>> I spent a week trying to get a win95 machine setup for PPP mail. I had to
>> delete everything and reinstall it.
>
> Well, you did not have to, you just did it. I know people that reinstall
> Linux once
> and again thinking it will solve things. PPP Linux configuration until a
> recent time
> was one of the principiants more difficult thing to do.
And as I found out is was also difficult in the early releases from
microsoft. My version of Win 95 doesn't support PPP at all. I had to
download several patches.
Reinstalation is also what the Dell/Microsoft people have recommended as a
fix for my NT troubles. After 2 years it still doesn't play midi files,
or allow me to have a different screen resolution for each user.
>
>> I still use my old version of lotus and wordperfect they run just fine
>> under DOSEMU.
>
> Well, you should recognize you are missing some of the new software
> features.
> Excellent if that works for you.
I've seen the new produts and have even used them. I got a copy of office
98 with my last machine. I still use the older version because it works.
the new version does not display a chart when I press F10 like the old one
does. I have to paste it on to the spreadsheet and creat a macro to jump
to it.
>> I switched to linux because my install of NT won't play midi sound files.
>> It's been 2 years now and Dell and Microsoft have no solutions.
>
> A personal case can't be a reason to use one or another OS, hardware
> support is not the best thing under Linux, you're just a lucky man.
It's not so great with MS either.
>> Also I can have separate user setups under linux, under NT if a user
>> changes the screen resolution every other user gets changed.
> Home users does not normally have too many users, let's say
> administrator, and two
> or three users. Anyway, do you honestly consider that is a reason to use
> Linux ?
The fact that I can change the user interface to what I want or need,
that I can get help quickly and easily,
That I can run it on several machines without extra cost,
that I can run it on most of my machines,
That upgrades are FREE, that most software is FREE,
I just wish they had a migration tool to move all the files out of the
proprietary data format so I could dump OE5.
------------------------------
From: "N/A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux implicit security
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:39:29 +0200
> Open source implicit security avoids things like "advert.dll", a shared
> Windows library (not installed by the OS itself, but by other programs)
that
> sends your information to only God knows.
yes, open source does that if you care to read the source code :-P
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marada C. Shradrakaii)
Subject: Re: I WAS WRONG
Date: 25 Mar 2000 18:45:10 GMT
>There are numerous rumored reasons why Bill Gates decided to go
>with QDOS
Perhaps he was under the assumption they wanted something CP/M like. If they
knew IBM was looking into DR's products, it's reasonable to expect they wanted
a CP/M-a-like.
--
Marada Coeurfuege Shra'drakaii
members.xoom.com/marada Colony name not needed in address.
DC2.Dw Gm L280c W+ T90k Sks,wl Cma-,wbk Bsu#/fl A+++ Fr++ Nu M/ O H++ $+ Fo++
R++ Ac+ J-- S-- U? I++ V+ Q++[thoughtspeech] Tc++
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Let's blow this Linux Scam Wide Open!!
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 15:56:19 -0300
R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8bh2hh$1ra$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Red Hat spent almost 5 years operating on a shoestring, turning
> out modest profits, until last year, it held it's annual LinuxExpo
RHAT, February 1995, annual net income: -128000 US$
RHAT, February 1999, annual net income: -91000 US$
I don't have the balance sheets for 96/97/98. I didn't know
they were turning out profits during that period. Do you have
a link for us? Thanks.
Francis.
------------------------------
From: charlie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
rec.video.satellite.dbs,alt.satellite.tv,rec.video.satellite.misc,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.infosystems.www.browsers.x,comp.infosystems.www.browsers,comp.infosystems.www.browswers.misc
Subject: Re: Dish Network's site is DOWN if you don't use M$'s browser.
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 19:03:47 GMT
Yea the has been down for a month..Becuase they are bankrupt...
Randy Crawford wrote:
> Simply amazing.
>
> I just tried to visit http://www.dishnetwork.com, but every
> time it crashed Netscape within visiting one, or at most two
> links off the main page. (I'm running Linux Redhat 6.0,
> Netscape 4.61, and I'm no newbie to Living Without Windows.)
>
> On the main page DN states that they DO NOT SUPPORT Netscape.
> Period. If you want to visit their site, "You should download
> Internet Explorer". They claim that it's Netscape's problem
> that their site crashes and burns and there's nothing they can
> do about it.
>
> UNbelievable. So much for selling Dish Network systems to
> all the AOL subscribers (who use Netscape).
>
> I bought a Dish Network system about a year ago. I *had*
> planned on renewing my subscription, and I wanted to see what
> their current services and hardware looked like.
>
> But I've changed my mind. If any vendor has the hubris to state
> that they won't serve me unless I CHANGE OPERATING SYSTEMS, or
> that they're unable to master the trivial technology of creating
> web pages that work with more than ONE browser, they clearly don't
> care if they lose millions of potential customers. And of course,
> they're incompetent idiots.
>
> Is Dish Network this clueless on other topics? I find this
> attitude to be incredibly self serving and short sighted. Do
> their stockholders know this? Does *Rupert Murdoch* know this?
>
> So... Anybody want to buy a Dish Network system? I'm switching to
> Direct TV.
>
> Randy
>
> --
> Randy Crawford
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.engin.umich.edu/labs/cpc
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:07:51 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting Roger from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 02:28:17 GMT
>On Tue, 21 Mar 2000 08:13:09 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
>Devlin wrote:
>
>>>Ah, so * that's * why, ATI and certain other video card manufacturers
>>>don't release the info required for the creation of Linux drivers --
>>>because of licensing of MS's OSes.
>
>>Need I bother disagreeing with such a ludicrous answer? No, but I will
>>anyway, since its you, Roger. I assume they don't release their proprietary
>>information because they are in business and are not stupid.
>
>Ah, so it's * not * due to pressure by MS that they do not support
>Linux.
No, its due to *circumstances intentionally created by MS in order to coerce
them into supporting a monopoly on the PC OS pre-load market* that they do not
support Linux.
:-) Sometimes, Roger, your ludicrous idiocy is actually very useful for pointing out
:why a shallow, simple view of the world is not appropriate for dealing with important
:and difficult issues.
>
>>only bother developing Windows drivers themselves to begin with is because of
>>licensing of MS's OSes. Dummy.
>
>And who did you have in mind that * only * develops Windows drivers?
Well, didn't you just say that they didn't? Who did *you* have in mind that
develops anything other than Windows drivers? (Not counting the Linux
development community, of course.)
>>>Or did you miss the fact that the discussion was hardware
>>>manufacturers in general?
>
>>The discussion is Microsoft, specifically, and how they've fucked over the
>>hardware manufacturers in general, I would suspect.
>
>And you would be wrong. Our regular viewers are once again not
>surprized.
>Free hint: try reading the thread for comprehension before you jump
>in next time...
Listen, jackoff; either your a stupid useless troll that should stop wasting
(WASTING) our time, or you are interested in discussion, in which case you
don't use "he didn't read every post in the thread" as an excuse for failing
to give any useful information or response.
Either way...
*BZZZ* thanks for trying, Roger, but you have scored '0' points yet again. I
guess you'll be back next week one way or the other, eh?
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:08:00 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting doc rogers from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 07:18:51 -0500
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >Neat. I know without a doubt that you are absolutely incorrect, because
>ive
>> >actually DONE it.
>
>> As have I. Now how do you suppose we should resolve this paradox?
>
>This particular discrepancy would best be understood by doing a little
>experiment using a number of Gateway 2600's.
>
>Since no one will probably agree to actually try to arrange such a thing, I
>at least emailed Gateway to see what they say about it.
Well, that's one of the problems right there. Getting information from
someone with a financial interest is a good way of getting incorrect
information.
We don't need "a number" of Gateway 2600s. We need one. I have one. If you
wish to make a trip to Reading, PA, I'll show you the steps necessary to
re-install the OS. Based on that hard evidence, it makes no difference at all
whether all 2600s exhibit such behavior or whether Gateway will provide
information related to this.
I know for sure, for example, that the video hardware, mouse software, and
Windows/usb/PCI/CardBus implementation had at least three revisions (one
shortly before I got my 2600, the nightmare configuration I had, and then at
the very least one other which was released several months after mine). They
were all "Gateway 2600s", though I would never say for sure that they all
required such a convoluted installation procedure.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
