Linux-Advocacy Digest #844, Volume #25 Mon, 27 Mar 00 22:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again) (Marty)
Re: Rumors ... (Jerry McBride)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: joys of command-line image manipulation (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (Roger)
Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG (Graffiti)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Giving up on NT (Bobo shows his hypocrisy yet again)
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:07:55 GMT
Interesting how you've determined that I'm not being reasonable:
BO> Obviously you are not going to be reasonable.
Yet, you responded to me anyway in spite of your rhetoric:
BO> I will not reply to you until such time as you direct yourself to at
BO> least a statement of position on the above issues. Until such time,
BO> I will hold my opinion, and you may hold your own, but I am not going
BO> to continue to engage you in irrelevant prattle on the subjects.
Predictably, just more Bobo hot air.
Bobo wrote (using a pseudonym again):
>
> On Sun, 27 Mar 3900 06:55:27, Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> |Looks like you were so "riled up" that you were too flustered to respond to my
> |article.
> |
> |I noticed how you neatly removed everything in your response.
>
> No the post was getting too long
Translation: I couldn't deal with my own inconsistencies, nor did I want to.
> and the important points were getting buried in your barrage of flak.
Translation: I took the liberty of removing your responses, evidence, and
explanations so that I didn't have to address them.
> |Choosing to run away from the facts *again*, eh Bobo?
>
> I realize that you feel you benefit from filling the discussion with a
> lot of fact.
I sure do, because the facts are on my side. Don't you? Obviously not
considering the way you have been posting. You prefer to fill the discussion
with innuendo, lies, and insults.
> I am pruning for clarity,
Translation: I've removed everything I could not deal with.
> you are posting for obscurity.
Translation: You're writing flies way over my head.
> [more flak deleted]
Translation: I've taken the liberty of removing your points as I could not
respond to them in any intelligible fashion.
> |> A. You claim I have offered no substantiation. This is false.
>
> |Liar. There is no admission on Sutherland's part of him attempting to get
> |Tholen fired for using a particular word. True or false?
>
> False,
Then where is it stated? Where is the admission?
> read the signature box in particular Sutherlands post that said
> the following: "Tholen used "queer" as an insult and a means to
> attack someone. This is discriminatory. He did so from his employers
> account. His employer has a policy against discrimination. Tholen
> acted against the policies of his employer. Tholens employer is now
> aware of this.
>
> And Sutherlands post: "If I posted anything remotely like Tholen's
> "queer" comments with my employers name anywhere within that message,
> I would be escorted to the door, and rightly so."
Where is the admission to attempting to get Tholen fired for using a
particular word? You may re-post the same paragraph 1000 times, but that
doesn't make the alleged admission magically spring into existence.
> |> The substantiation that Sutherland tried to get Tholen fired is
> |> provided in my signature box.
> |
> |No substantiation to be seen there. I see loosely connected innuendo coupled
> |with misleading editorial comments, but no substantiation whatsoever.
>
> Saying I am going to "blow your head off" and saying "I did blow his
> head off" may not be an admission to "murder" in your book, but you
> are just a weird guy.
Actually, as I have pointed out *NUMEROUS* times, Sutherland is not the one
with the "weapon". If his aim were to get Tholen fired, he would have had to
communicate that to the U of H. He did not. He requested that the U of H go
easy on Tholen.
> |> B. David Sutherland produced only one of his alleged letters he
> |> claimed he sent to officials at UofH. You are incorrect in saying
> |> that he stated in that letter than he did not want Tholen treated
> |> harshly. What he said Marty is he did not want Tholen "flogged",
> |
> |Having trouble comprehending his metaphor too? Not surprising. The reader
> |will note that "getting flogged" was used as a metaphor for harsh treatment,
> |as opposed to a "slap on the wrist" being a metaphor for getting off easy.
>
> Note how Mr Interference for the Usenet Spy
Who are you talking about Bobo? Stick to the topic for a change.
"[more flak deleted]"
> Whats the matter Marty?
Your line of reasoning (or lack thereof).
> Have trouble with inferences that require more than one word?
Not at all, Bobo. One does not infer to decide guilt. One deduces and proves
guilt. One can only infer from a metaphor. You obviously still have no
concept what a metaphor is nor how one works, so I'm not surprised that this
fact is lost on you.
> |> Several things are wrong with this evidence:
>
> |> 1) Sutherland did not send the original message via usenet,
> |
> |Which is precisely what gives it merit. He sent it directly to the U of H,
> |contrary to any piece of "evidence" you have presented. As such it has
> |infinitely more weight than anything posted in this public forum.
>
> Usenet does not record what was sent to UofH, thus the usenet record
> is of an "alleged" note, not the actual note.
You've just disqualified all of your own evidence. How moronic!
> |> thus the only copy we have is an alleged reproduction submitted by
> |> Sutherland, claiming this is the letter he sent.
> |
> |Tholen verified that this was, in fact, the letter sent to the U of H.
>
> Evidence please
http://x32.deja.com/[ST_rn=ps]/getdoc.xp?AN=575891265&search=thread&CONTEXT=954205090.1215758341&HIT_CONTEXT=954205090.1215758341&HIT_NUM=13&hitnum=15
Thumb through this thread. It is a discussion of Dr. Ching's response to
Sutherland's letter, confirming the existence of both by Tholen.
> |> 2) Sutherland claimed sending more than one communication, yet he
> |> has failed to produce the other communications even though asked to.
> |
> |Evidence, please. We can only go by the evidence presented, contrary to your
> |tendancy to fill in the blanks with what you'd like to see.
>
> Your wish is my command Marty.
I'm not even gonna touch that one...
> Sutherlands post on May 2 1999:
>
> BO> You told us David. It was Judith, "the lovely lady who reads the
> BO> UofH presidents' inbox".
>
> DS> Are you claiming she was the only one?
>
> DS> I state that I was in communication with more than Judith over
> DS> this matter. If you want to call me a liar, then do it - and I'll
> DS> get those other people to confirm their involvement.
Very well, now your point? Are we to assume that his other communications
requested that Tholen be fired for using a particular word without any
evidence of seeing said communications? Furthermore, this is quite irrelevant
to your claim that Sutherland admitted to trying to get Tholen fired for using
a particular word.
> |> 3) Since by your own admission, Sutherland can not control whether
> |> Tholen would get fired, and considering that Sutherland believed in
> |> his own words below that the appropriate punishment would be firing;
> |
> |Wrong. Sutherland believed that his employer would have fired him had
> |Sutherland done such a thing. He does not know of the environment of Tholen's
> |employers or what they will or will not tolerate.
>
> Pure hogwash Marty.
Prove that Sutherland knows the environment of Tholen's employers and what
they will and will not tolerate, if you think you can.
"[more flak deleted]"
> I suppose you would argue in court, in defense of the guy who ran
> somebody down with his auto, that he didn't intend to kill him because
> he had not given the guy a physiological examination and therefore had
> not determined if the guy was vulnerable to being damaged by the car.
> Your argument is laughable Marty.
Still using the same tired and inappropriate analogy after my refuting it
numerous times? Sutherland is incapable of committing the act of costing
Tholen his employment. Tholen jumped out in the middle of the street and
started giving Sutherland the finger. Sutherland pointed out to a police
officer that he was J-walking. If the police officer decides he should mow
him down, how is that Sutherland's fault?
> |> claiming that the language Sutherland submitted in his letter to the
> |> UofH is little more than the equivalent of a guy yelling "Don't Die
> |> you Bastard" as he uses his auto to run his enemy down.
> |
> |Not even close. As you have just admitted, Sutherland was powerless to cost
> |Tholen his employment. Hence the "auto" was not in his hands, and his
> |communications with those holding the "weapons" is of paramount importance in
> |the case. How many times must I explain this to you?
>
> Point taken however, since many employer's do not value the rights of
> their workers and only look to their image and/or profits/funding
> sources for ultimate employment decisions, they often operate like
> automobiles in an unthinking way towards the rights of their
> employees.
Perhaps that's the way your employers have been, but in my experience,
employers have realized the value of their workers and that profit could not
exist without the presence of talented professionals. Immaterial in any case,
as the rigidity and alleged insensitivity of Tholen's employer is hardly
Sutherland's fault. If the police officer in my previous example just had his
wife leave him and found out he had terminal cancer, is it Sutherland's fault
if he flips his wig?
"[more flak deleted]"
> |> C. Since it is clear that you have complained about the order of
> |> statements in my signature box, and you have complained about the
> |> editorial comments I added, I have several times now offered to remedy
> |> those alleged faults. However, your response has been to delete
> |> references to those offers in your replies which goes to show how
> |> bankrupt your series of arguments.
>
> |That is an absolute and utter lie. Had *you* not deleted them in this
> |response, you might have seen my response. I'll reproduce it for you:
>
> |BO> Tell me what order you want them in that you will find satisfactory.
> |BO> In fact, I will even include dates they were said if you think that will
> |BO> satisfy you. Also if you think removal of the editorial notes will aid
> |BO> in reader comprehension and this satisfies you, I will remove them also.
> |
> |M> How about including your claim (following my statement) and removing the
> |M> misleading commentary. Then while you're at it, substantiate or retract
> |M> your claim.
>
> Obviously you are not going to be reasonable.
How ironic. You made a direct request, to which I responded directly. You
then lied about my having made a response, removing it from your reply,
pretending it never existed. Now I present the same direct response to your
request and you tell me I'm not being reasonable. If you didn't want to hear
what I had to say, then why did you ask? How reasonable is it to ask for
information, then lie about its existence when it is presented?
Furthermore what is unreasonable about including your quotes in the correct
context with your claim, removing misleading commentary, and substantiating or
retracting your claim? The fact that you find any of the previously mentioned
items to be unreasonable speaks volumes about your character, not that it
isn't the same tired volumes we've all heard time and time again.
> |> D. Since the above three points compellingly demonstrate your lack of
> |> forceful arguments,
> |
> |Not even close. Your act of deletion and the lies that followed clearly show
> |you have no ground upon which to stand.
>
> Grounds you may not comprehend, anyway, I will grant you that.
There is no legitimate grounds for your lies and deletion, comprehensible or
otherwise.
> |> and you instead choose to attack me with a variety of juvenile insults,
> |
> |Such as "fartface", for example, hypocrite? Now I challenge you to locate a
> |juvenile insult that *I* issued towards you.
>
> OK
>
> |Still blowing hot air?
How is this a "juvenile insult"? I've stated my reasons why your words were
hollow and empty, amounting to blowing hot air (your context removal
notwithstanding).
> |Typical illogic.
Tholen would be quite interested to know how you find this to be a juvenile
insult. Nonetheless, it too was accompanied by an explanation of what I found
illogical in your statement (your context removal notwithstanding).
> |Still having reading comprehension problems?
Tholen would be quite interested to know how you find this to be a juvenile
insult. Nonetheless, it too was accompanied by an explanation of how I
determined you were having difficulty comprehending what was written (your
context removal notwithstanding).
> |How transparent can you get?
How is this a "juvenile insult"? I've predicted your actions and you followed
them to a "T", thus demonstrating the transparency of your tactics (your
context removal notwithstanding).
> |Typical illogic.
Tholen would be quite interested to know how you find this to be a juvenile
insult. Nonetheless, it too was accompanied by an explanation of what I found
illogical in your statement (your context removal notwithstanding).
> |Just another Bobo lie.
How is this a "juvenile insult"? I've pointed out how your statements have
been untruthful (your context removal notwithstanding) and you have failed to
refute my points on this matter.
> |Typical pontification.
Tholen would be quite interested to know how you find this to be a juvenile
insult. Nonetheless, it followed a statement which you've failed to back up
(your context removal notwithstanding).
> |No need, hypocrite:
How is this a "juvenile insult"? I've pointed out how your statements have
been hypocritical (your context removal notwithstanding) and you have failed
to refute my points on this matter.
> |Still having reading comprehension problems?
Tholen would be quite interested to know how you find this to be a juvenile
insult. Nonetheless, it too was accompanied by an explanation of how I
determined you were having difficulty comprehending what was written (your
context removal notwithstanding).
> | I see you're still enjoying your verbal masturbation.
How is this a "juvenile insult"? I've fully described how your style of
posting has fit perfectly with this metaphor (your context removal
notwithstanding) and you have failed to refute my points on this matter.
> | Still continuing your verbal masturbation, eh Bobo?
How is this a "juvenile insult"? I've fully described how your style of
posting has fit perfectly with this metaphor (your context removal
notwithstanding) and you have failed to refute my points on this matter.
> |Still having reading comprehension problems?
Tholen would be quite interested to know how you find this to be a juvenile
insult. Nonetheless, it too was accompanied by an explanation of how I
determined you were having difficulty comprehending what was written (your
context removal notwithstanding).
> Instances limited to the I am responding to, in fact.
That makes sense. Try English next time. What amuses me is how you place the
above alleged "juvenile insults" in the same category with your:
"Perhaps it something you should try to your kids don't end up as stupid as
you."
"There is an old saying fartface."
"Not only are you a filthy low-life lying bastard pig, you are too stupid to
know it."
et al.
Your hypocrisy is truly boundless.
> Marty Amodeo says: "If Glatt, Sutherland, yourself, or myself tried
> to get someone fired for using a particular word it is a despicable
> act."
>
> David Sutherland made the following quotes in posts residing on
> Dejanews:
>
> If I posted anything remotely like Tholen's "queer" [Editor: Note
> particular word in quotes] comments with my employers name
> anywhere within that message, I would be escorted to the door,
> and rightly so.[Editor: Note euphemism for firing]
>
> If Tholen doesn't apologise in full, publicly and at great length, I
> *will* advise his university, as this kind of bullshit *should* and
> *will* be challenged.[Editor: Note threat]
>
> I've asked Kenneth P. Mortimer, President, University of
> Hawaii ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) for his opinion on how
> certain members of the faculty are spending their time.[Editor: Note
> admission to personal notification of employer]
>
> Tholen used "queer" [Editor: Note particular word in quotes] as an
> insult and a means to attack someone. This is discriminatory. He did
> so from his employers account. His employer has a policy against
> discrimination. Tholen acted against the policies of his employer.
> Tholens employer is now aware of this. [Editor: Note reason for
> contacting employer]
>
> Pretty despicable, I have to agree Marty.
Still demonstrating your inability to prove your claims? How embarrasing! No
matter how many times you repeat it, it does not magically produce evidence
that Sutherland tried to get Tholen fired for using a word, especially in
light of Sutherland's reproduction of the letter he actually sent to the U of
H. I ask again (noting the lack of previous response), where is the part that
proves that Sutherland tried to get him fired for using a word? Can't find
that part, can you? Too bad.
I see your signature is unchanged. So much for:
BO> See I am not such an unreasonable guy Marty. I will work with you
BO> on this.
More hot air. How convenient that you lied about my response to this
statement.
--
The wit of Bob Osborn in action:
"Perhaps it something you should try to your kids don't end up as stupid as
you."
"There is an old saying fartface."
"Not only are you a filthy low-life lying bastard pig, you are too stupid to
know it."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry McBride)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Rumors ...
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 20:25:41 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-- snip --
>All we need from Microsoft and it's partners is a promise not to
>develop Windows-centric hardware; publish all calls for every
>piece of equipment. The source code to Windows would do nicely,
>unless Microsoft would care to cooperate in other, less barbaric
>ways....
>
A promise from MicroSoft??? What rosey colored glasses you have...
--
*******************************************************************************
Write your complaints in this box-----> []
*******************************************************************************
* NetRexx - The onramp to the Internet - http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx *
*******************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:36:27 GMT
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 07:47:41 -0500, someone claiming to be doc rogers
wrote:
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>A "troll" isn't simply someone who disagrees with you.
For Max, that's * exactly * what a troll is...
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:34:52 GMT
On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:08:29 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Quoting doc rogers from alt.destroy.microsoft; Wed, 22 Mar 2000 20:19:39 -0500
>>Two comments:
>>1. According to Gateway, no such model as the Gateway 2600 exists. I also
>>searched the net for the model number just in case the tech I corresponded
>>with didn't know what he was talking about, but I could find no mention of a
>>Gateway 2600.
>Hardly a surprise. It may very well be possible I'm mis-remembering the model
>(though I certainly recognized the convoluted install procedure).
C'mon, Max, try one more time -- we'll take it slowly:
"I was wrong again."
Admitting your mistakes when you make them goes a long way toward
helping your credibility...
>I honestly don't think it matters.
Yup, we're supposed to accept everything else you say regardless of
how many mistakes you ignore even after their being pointed out to
you, because you're Max, and You Said So.
>More probably, the Gateway 2600 doesn't "exist"
>because they don't sell it anymore, and it is more than two years old.
>Laptops which were manufactured more than two years prior cease to exist in
>the minds and databases of the vendor.
Even a cursory examination of their website reveals that they have
information on every box they've made back to the original Solo (no
number)
But then, that would almost be like doing research or supporting ones
assertions, and we couldn't have that, could we? Start down that
sticky slope, and one might find themselves running away from another
"put your money where your mouth is challenge" that one threw down in
a fit of machismo.
>That's not even my usual posting style; that's special treatment I reserve for
>Roger and other trolls of his caliber.
Translation: "The posters that regularly piss Max off by pointing out
his errors." Especially ones to whom he owes money.
>I figure, part of the fun of being a
>troll is, I know, pretending to stay level headed while frustrating your
>victim into spewing obscenities.
Because in MaxWorld, anyone pointing out his mistakes obviously must
have an ulterior motive.
>So I just skip the middle parts, having gone
>through that often enough to find it boring, and go straight to the
>name-calling. That's the fun part for me. :-)
And it helps your credibility * so * much, too...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: joys of command-line image manipulation
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:41:02 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Tim Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote on Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:14:49 -0600 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Erna Odelfsan wrote:
>>
>> > Shell scripts are indeed a beautiful thing, aren't they?
>>
>> They are, but, NT has scriptting languages too, including PERL;
>> scripts are not exclusive from Linux or Unix. Even DOS had a very
>> primitive scriptting language, that could be easily extended with
>> external commands very very easy to build. What's more, almost
>> every GNU utility (including often script used like find, awk, sed,
>> etc ...) has been compiled for Win32. So you are not really advocating
>> Linux or Unix in here, just advocating scriptting, in which I agree to
>> advocate too.
>
>but linux, for example, has just scores of cli tools to do all
>sorts of useful things with scripts. NT doesn't shit by
>comparison.
>
>Eg., Look at all the conversion utils that are typically in
>/usr/bin (ps2pdf, tif2ps, etc., etc)
NT has all of the tools that Linux has, and more. Presumably,
one can build any one of the CLI Linux tools on NT, with help
from Cygwin. The GUI Linux tools can be built if one builds
XFree86 first, and has the requisite libraries available.
It's not clear to me if these are features, or hacks. One issue
might be that NT's "command line interface" needs to be
started from the GUI, whereas Linux's GUI(s) are usually started
from the command line, unless one uses runlevel 5 (in which case,
they're started from a daemon during the login procedure; I forget
the details).
It's also not clear how well the tools will fit together with
themselves and with other tools NT has available. (For what it's
worth, NT does have piping -- but how well does piping work
with heavily GUI-laden tools?)
>
>--
>Tim Kelley
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:42:30 GMT
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:40:49 GMT, someone claiming to be JEDIDIAH
wrote:
>On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:56:11 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>>On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:07:51 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
>>Devlin wrote:
>>>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:
>>It is your contention that MS pressure is the reason why manufacturers
>>do not support other OSes, and since you have now ducked the question
>>of who is being so pressured, a single example will suffice to
>>disprove it.
> Microsoft was sued by the Department of Justice over this
> before. This is where their relationshipo began.
And they settled with a statement that the licensing under scrutiny
had had no deleterious effect on the market. IOW, what pressure there
was did not prevent support of other OSes.
> Also:
>
> Ralph Nader actually got quite a bit of press last year with
> this issue. His organization tried to purchase prebuild PC's
> from several large, visible distributors and was stonewalled
> with exclusive (buy only from us or we'll put you out of
> business with high licence prices) being cited as the barrier
> present at the VAR's.
And, of course, a front line sales person will be privy to all of the
negotiations conducted with suppliers, and will cheerfully volunteer
the details of same to anyone who calls in...
> Contracts stipulating ALL units shipped have WinDOS were replaced
> with contracts doing the same thing but only doing so one product
> line at a time.
Which then facilitates the creation of a separate line, changing as
little as one digit in the model number, having whatever OS would sell
installed.
Of course, the costs involved in supporting that other OS didn't have
anything at all to do with the decision not to offer it -- it's all a
plot by big bad MS.
------------------------------
From: Roger <roger@.>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:49:02 GMT
On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 14:38:14 -0800, someone claiming to be Bob Lyday
wrote:
>JEDIDIAH wrote:
>> On Mon, 27 Mar 2000 00:56:11 GMT, Roger <roger@.> wrote:
>> >On Sat, 25 Mar 2000 14:07:51 -0500, someone claiming to be T. Max
>> >Devlin wrote:
>> >>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:
>> >It is your contention that MS pressure is the reason why manufacturers
>> >do not support other OSes, and since you have now ducked the question
>> >of who is being so pressured, a single example will suffice to
>> >disprove it.
>The court cases involved stem from 1995, so the data may be hard
>to dig up. You could search on the Internet...
But the speculative pressure is current, with a recent case supplying
current data. Your lack of substantiation for this claim is noted.
>Another reason HW makers will not write drivers for other OS's:
>M$ writes 90% of the drivers out there.
Nope. They write the basic ones, and the OEMs (with close cooperation
from MS) write everything that is even a little bit off standard.
>Microtrash forces HW
>makers to sign non-compete agreements (whatever that means) and
>non-disclose agreements (apparently they cannot disclose the
>source code of the driver).
This is what you are supposed to be supporting -- not just spinning
more fables about.
And if they cannot disclose it, how do you know this?
>Then it locks them into very long
>agreements, say 10 years. I know some people who work for HW
>companies and they have told me that these agreements are what
>keep them from writing drivers for other OS's.
So, you have a name for this mythical company being so pressured?
Didn't think so.
>They are
>uncertain that the driver they produce will be different enough
>from the Windows driver.
Well, since MS doesn't do anything but the most basic, it's not hard
to offer a compelling update if you hardware does anything out of the
ordinary (acceleration, etc.)
>M$ lawyers wear *big* glasses and they
>might get sued. A number of these companies would love to
>produce drivers for other OS's.
But if they did, Guido might come over and conduct another
"negotiation" ...
------------------------------
Subject: Re: 80286 Question : was : I WAS WRONG
From: Graffiti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 02:55:43 GMT
In article <ZjMD4.91$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erna Odelfsan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I think TSX runs on 80286, and that Xenix runs too; I've heard of a
>project to port Linux to 80286 CPU's, but never heard it again, not sure if
>it ever became to something or abandoned.
Xenis is heavily M$. If you buy the 286 version, it *is* M$.
Of course, there's always Minix (be prepared to hack), and ELKS (that Linux
port you're referring to. Dunno if it has a IP stack, though).
-- DN
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
