Linux-Advocacy Digest #980, Volume #25 Thu, 6 Apr 00 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. (T.
Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Why Linux on the desktop? (Christopher Browne)
Re: Review: Corel Office 2000 (David Steinberg)
Re: Open Software Reliability (Charlie Ebert)
Re: lnux from 320 to 56 ("Francis Van Aeken")
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Jeremy Crabtree)
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you? (Damien)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
(Damien)
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. (T.
Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters. (T.
Max Devlin)
Re: Review: Corel Office 2000 (Christopher Browne)
Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading (Bob Germer)
Re: Windows 2000 has "issues" (Bob Germer)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:06:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED] from alt.destroy.microsoft; Tue, 04 Apr >On
Tue, 04 Apr 2000 14:51:03 GMT, "Leonard F. Agius"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>So what? Now we have multiple local and near zones, where it is now more
>>expensive today to dial a number on the other side of town (at least in
>>Detroit, Chicago, and other Ameritech locations). It's cheaper for me to
>>call one of my siblings out of state than to call my parents fifteen miles
>>a way. Degregulation did cause long distance rates to fall, but what you
>>may not have realized is that in the bad ole' days of one Ma Bell, the long
>>distance rates were subsidizing the local service. Now it doesn't. I'm not
>>making that up, either. The Michigan Public Service Commission (which
>>regulates local utilities) stated that fact two years ago.
>
>That is exactly what happened here in NY, especially in the suburbs.
>The "local calling area" has expanded to cover hundreds of miles so
>that despite being called local, it is really a toll call. I can call
>from NY to CA cheaper than I can from Montauk Long Island to
>SouthHampton which is one town away.
Here in PA, we have the opposite problem. They are overlapping area codes,
and you have to dial the area code to get across the street. Meanwhile, some
parts of my own area code and some other area codes are toll calls, while
other area codes are long distance. I really haven't any idea how much it
costs for me to call anyone.
And it ain't regulation of the local loop, OR lack of competition in lucrative
markets; ITS THAT DAMN EINSTEIN. Him and all his 'matter' and 'physics' and
'space/time'. DOWN WITH THE TYRANNY OF THE PHYSICAL PLANT!
The point is that anything BUT a regulated non-monopoly utility for anything
like phone service is just plain silly. At best, you can absolutely prevent
ownership of cables and subscriber-connected switches; the local phone service
just runs the equipment, the city/county/state owns it. Or you could say a
company can only own a single local calling area, that being the *definition*
of local calling areas. IAW, each phone company must provide flat-rate
service for all of its own subscribers; calling someone who uses a different
company, regardless of geography, would be "long distance".
But I suspect that would be burdensome to a capitalist system. Possibly a
simple "local control, distributed oversight" collection of regulations which
allow competition between businesses without requiring restrictions on
commerce nor encouraging monopolization. Maybe like television stations used
to be, where a company couldn't own more than one in a market, and couldn't
own too many in different markets.
Seems to me the world was a lot saner when you couldn't own both TV stations
and newspapers. I could rely on a lot more of the information I received, I
think, when a business grew by selling more products, not by buying other
companies that sell products.
Maybe I'm just getting middle-aged.
>>I can't speak for you, but I make a hell of a lot more local calls than I
>>do long distance, so in the end, deregulation costs me more in the way of
>>higher over all phone bills.
>
>Same here...
No, the continued use of "local/long distance" restrictions to prevent one
industry from preying on the other long enough to erase the difference cost
you more ways. The exponential multiplication of phone services cost you more
than deregulation.
Even as one who supports regulation in limited cases, I've gotta admit that
deregulation seems to always bring prices *down*. In the case of phone
services, there are still some vestiges of control which increase the cost of
local service, *because without it the price would drop to almost 0*, I
believe. And you get what you pay for. That's the "more ways" I think you
refer to.
Let's all admit it: we get crappier service from telephones, ISPs, the Web,
computers, hell, even television and just about anything non-mechanical now
then we used to. We get MORE OF IT, but its crappier. The quality of service
of the telephone system continues to amaze me with its depths. Windows2000 is
a hundred times more reliable than NT, AND ITS STILL NOT AS RELIABLE AS ANY
TECHNICALLY AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE. Every time they put a new piece of
equipment into our voice or data networks at work, we have more problems then
we did before.
Then again, I just got a third phone line in my house for only $35 (plus, of
course, exorbitant fees for the service every month!), so maybe its just
selective memory in action. "When I was a kid..." (Though I'm thinking more
like "When I was 30...", and that was only six short years ago.)
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Date: Wed, 05 Apr 2000 14:09:44 -0400
Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
<snip>
>> Only a true moron would defend and advocate a M$ product in a newsgroup
>> dedicated to ADVOCATING AND PROMOTING 0S/2. You are about to qualify for
>> the faggots killfile with Sutherland, McCoy, etc.
>Another well-thought-out and eloquently conveyed response from Boob Germer.
No Chad -- in Dutch Uncle talk what he is trying to say is this; Why don't you
Windoze people just go away since you have nothing to say here that is worth
listening to.
>Of course, I can never seem to discern his point from these posts, but it is
>a pleasure nonetheless.
...Dutch Uncle time again; He is trying to point out that you're jackasses.
-- Do any of you need that last word defined before it can be understood?
_____________
Ed Letourneau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Subject: Re: Why Linux on the desktop?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 04:07:59 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when abraxas would say:
>Donal K. Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> In article <8ceei3$7d0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> abraxas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Python (and most ive discussed this with agree) is a controversial
>>> beast. It seems to be a scripting language that acts just like a
>>> programming language. And thats if you DONT embedd C.
>
>> Python *is* a programming language. It belongs to the major class of
>> programming languages known as "scripting languages".
>
>Scripting languages are not programming languages.
I periodically hear this claim; I see enough production systems deployed
using "scripting" languages that I have to call this utter nonsense.
If you want to sit in a hole somewhere and cry that "scripting languages
are not programming languages," nobody can stop you. Nobody is required
to believe you...
--
"What did we agree about a leader??"
"We agreed we wouldn't have one."
"Good. Now shut up and do as I say..."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (David Steinberg)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Review: Corel Office 2000
Date: 6 Apr 2000 04:09:04 GMT
Christopher Browne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: When the *major point* of this package is to provide a way for the
: "naive WinTel folk" to migrate away from Microsoft, it is *not* going
: to be a good thing if it's got significant stability and "polish"
: issues.
You are VERY correct. And WordPerfect Office for Linux definately has
issues. I attended the Corel Linux Roadshow last night, which featured an
hour-long demonstration of the suite. I was quite disappointed: it didn't
make it through the demo without dying.
The nastiest part: they tried to cover the fact that it choked. It
happened when they attempted to demonstrate the feature of Corel
Presentations that exports a presentation to HTML. A dialogue half-drew
before coming to a halt. The presenter made a comment about this one
being a little slow to come up, then jumped up from her seat and offered
the audience a chance to win a little stuffed penguin. She asked a
question about the Corel File Manager, and while the penguin was being
delivered to the person who answered correctly, the screen flickered
once, and the dialog box was gone. She returned to her seat, brought up
the dialog box again and proceeded with the demo. However, she was not
using the same laptop. And one bit of formatting she had just
applied had changed.
Presumably, the person sitting next to her had been following along
(though not too closely) on another laptop, and they gave away the penguin
to distract the audience while they switched over the screen to the other
machine.
One crash per hour? That's not acceptible stability for this Linux
user. And that was on a carefully planned demo. The fact that they were
anticipating a crash, with slick plans to cover it up is not encouraging
either.
There's way too many "features" that second-guess the user (for
example, when you type "Total:" into a cell in Quatropro, it automatically
sums the adjacent columns)...it makes Microsoft Office look restrained by
comparison.
If it ever becomes reasonably stable, and if such ridiculous features can
be disabled, I'll give it another look. For now, there's no way I'd spend
$150 on that.
--
David Steinberg -o) Boycott Amazon.com! Fight
Computer Engineering Undergrad, UBC / \ the "1-Click Order" patent:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] _\_v http://www.nowebpatents.org
------------------------------
From: Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Open Software Reliability
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 04:11:29 GMT
Terry Murphy wrote:
I deleted it all Terry. That was the best I could do for it.
Terry,
I like VMS and VAX stuff. It's good stuff. But saying VMS runs
the world is like Al Gore saying
he invented the internet. It just won't fly Terry.
Further, xNIX's make up for 90% of the internet market right now.
That's all that runs the internet. Unix clones run the internet and for the
most part the world.
But VMS is nice Terry. I'm not knocking it. It's very good stuff for what
it was designed to do.
And I'm sure your super proud of it too Terry.
Everybody should take some pride in what they love, don't you think.
And I think the rest of us should give this guy a break.
Your all acting like he said Microsoft runs the planet or something really
stupid like that.
Charlie
------------------------------
From: "Francis Van Aeken" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: lnux from 320 to 56
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2000 01:19:35 -0300
JOGIBA <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:uuC2kN3n$GA.235@cpmsnbbsa03...
> Were is the money ?
In the pockets of the people who had shares first and sold them
to those that believed the hype. As usual, the small investor got
burned. E$R can be proud.
Francis.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Crabtree)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Date: 6 Apr 2000 04:21:54 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] allegedly wrote:
Welcome to the killfile...and, I'll even give you an expiration date...say,
July...maybe by then, you'll be gone, or run out of FUD.
--
"The UNIX philosophy is to provide some scraps of metal and an enormous
roll of duct tape. With those -- and possibly some scraps of your own
-- you can conquer the world." -- G. Sumner Hayes
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 06 Apr 2000 04:22:30 GMT
On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:38:21 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
Fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| The goal should be to make the computer easy to use. People just want to
| turn it on, and use it to get their work done. Most people don't care how
| it works. They just want to check email, and cruise the web. They don't
| want to dwell on how large to make the /var partition.
Redhat automagically chooses your partitions for you if you do a
Workstation install. Of course you wouldn't even have to do that if
it came pre-installed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 06 Apr 2000 04:33:19 GMT
On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 02:16:55 GMT, in alt.destroy.microsoft,
fmc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| "2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
| news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
| > > Stallman is a master of double think. He considers violations of
| copyright
| > > like software piracy no more than ``sharing information with your
| > > neighbor'', and then he uses those same copyright laws to set up GPL,
| where
| > > it states, "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the
| Program
| > > except as expressly provided under this License", and "These actions are
| > > prohibited by law if you do not accept this License ".
| >
| > That's out of neccessity. If it didn't have those terms, people could
| legally
| > use the code and NOT pass on the source, which is not what Free Software
| is
| > about. The license is needed to keep the free software free. I, personally
| like
| > that.
| >
|
| How does that justify equating software piracy to ``sharing information
| with your neighbor''?
Well let's see. Software is information. But if you share software
with the people around you get labeled a pirate and put in jail. What
part of that equation do you not understand?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:37:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting fmc from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 06 Apr 2000 02:16:55 GMT
>"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Stallman is a master of double think. He considers violations of copyright
>> > like software piracy no more than ``sharing information with your
>> > neighbor'', and then he uses those same copyright laws to set up GPL, where
>> > it states, "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
>> > except as expressly provided under this License", and "These actions are
>> > prohibited by law if you do not accept this License ".
>>
>> That's out of neccessity. If it didn't have those terms, people could legally
>> use the code and NOT pass on the source, which is not what Free Software is
>> about. The license is needed to keep the free software free. I, personally like
>> that.
>
>How does that justify equating software piracy to ``sharing information
>with your neighbor''?
It doesn't; you drew that equation. Stallman, I believe, thinks that
copyright laws are not appropriate to software. I agree with him. So did the
people who decide what copyright laws are appropriate to, until 1976. Soon
after which, Stallman began "protecting" his software code (which he didn't
believe needed "protection", but the government did and, more importantly,
business people did) by using the GPL. It prevents a business from stealing
his software from the public domain, where software belongs, and saying that
it is theirs, and is subject to copyright, and you can't use it unless they
say you can.
According to the concept of open source software, software is *intellectual
effort*, not intellectual property. The result of such effort isn't property,
either. It is a service. You can charge for it. You can charge to write
software for someone, distribute it to someone, install it for someone, or fix
it for someone. You can even pay someone to use it for you. But you can't
pay for "it"; it's already been paid for. And it generally has: most
programmers perform work-for-hire. As do, say, newspaper journalists.
Should someone who has read the writing of a newspaper columnist be restricted
from writing news stories on similar topics for fear of breaking the license
they were required to accept in order to read the paper?
If it were copyright law preventing people from pirating software, there
wouldn't be licenses of such great restriction. ("Software wants to be free"
is, I think, a famous quote attributed to Stallman. It is often, casually,
and vehemently misunderstood by the great majority of people.) Most people
are prevented from pirating software by licensing. Now, since copyright law
is quite successful at keeping newspapers and music and such protected, why
does software end up with such outrageously restrictive licensing
requirements?
So to come out the other side, you are right; Stallman *does* equate software
piracy with sharing information with your neighbor. As it pertains to
copyright law. But you aren't talking about that: you're talking about
licensing.
Because that's quite a different case: if pirating software *were* just like
sharing information with your neighbor, then there would be no licensing
restrictions necessary. Your neighbor would still buy their own subscription
to the paper. You don't sign a license to play a record, or to buy a book, do
you?
Ironically(?), it is by protecting software with copyright law which makes
licensing necessary. I think Stallman is quite right in this regard, and he
doubtless has a better way of expressing it. Perhaps you should ask him how
he would equate pirating software to sharing information. I doubt he uses
anything that isn't open source without a special reason, so he certainly
doesn't practice it, himself, I would expect, nor encourage it in others.
Software piracy, that is. He certainly isn't opposed to sharing information.
[...]
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 6 Apr 2000 04:44:32 GMT
51 IP address limit for a _server_ ??? A domain controller, no less!
Boy, these guys really do live a small world, don't they?
Guido
In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|In <8c4cag$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
|| I do not know why you guys are making a big deal of this issue.
||
||If an ISP expects more than 51 connections to come in, they
||simply buy an additional copy of WIn2000 Server windows edition.
|
|Amen.
|
|I mean it is so F&#*@n obvious that MS need not document
|the requirement.
|
||The ISP needs to do their job, they need to montior
||how many IP's they use, and make sure they divide that
||number by 51. The resulting number is the number of win2000
||server windows edition they need to purshase from MS to meer
||their needs.
|
|Sure, and 51 is such a nice, round number which is why MS deided to use
|51 as th elimit and not 50 or 100.
|
||I would have real issue with MS with this issue if they limited
||the number to say 15 or 12. But I think 51 is a large enough
||number, and we should thank, not condem MS for this. If MS
||wanted to really produce something less than an excellence,
||they would have put the limit at 5 IP's. Then I would be
||the first to have an issue with this issue.
||
||Having only 51 IP's per win2000 server windows edition, is not
||a big issue. Learn to live with it.
|
|I think "Lean to live with it" is a much better motto for MS than
|"Where do you want to go today?" It really does reflects the
|customer relationship.
|
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: You anti-Microsoft types just don't get it, do you?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 04:41:01 GMT
On Thu, 06 Apr 2000 02:05:14 GMT, Leonard F. Agius <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>Fred wrote:
>
>> The goal should be to make the computer easy to use. People just want to
>> turn it on, and use it to get their work done. Most people don't care how
>> it works. They just want to check email, and cruise the web. They don't
>> want to dwell on how large to make the /var partition.
>>
>> > You know about partitions. I know about partitions. The typical
>> > Windows user knows C:\windows and that's it.
>> >Example of people not knowing what they are doing. They're $.10/dozen
>> >anymore thanks to Windows.
>>
>> >True, but it is the reality of the situation and a point the
>> >Linvocates fail to be able to grasp.
>
>You said it Fred.
And make it dog slow and very very expensive. A word processor shouldn't
do what you type. If you tab in a line, the previous five lines should
tab with and the menus should make it obvious that the word processor
knows what is best. Put that next line back!
lets hear it for a future of three dimensional noisy animated paperclips.
The computer is not a tool. It is a arcade demonstration for geeks.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The Failure of Microsoft Propaganda -was- So where are the MS supporters.
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:47:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Quoting fmc from alt.destroy.microsoft; Thu, 06 Apr 2000 03:05:34 GMT
[...]
>This assumes that there's an open source version of the software I need, and
>as I showed with regard to tax preparation, that's not always the case. It
>also assumes that I'd want to muck around in someone else's code, that I'm
>an experienced programmer, and that I'm familiar with the application area
>in question.
Or have a financial interest in having any of this done, in which case you
*pay* someone to do it, just like you do now. You're not afraid the guy who
wrote the tax preparation books will die, are you?
>Count the number of people who can meet those qualifications
>and you have a fair idea of the maximum potential size of the Linux market.
Including mine? All of them.
>> Now if a commercial entity dies your screwed, well and truly.
>
> I'll just switch to a competing product. That usually solves the problem.
>If it doesn't, I'll take the day off and go fishing.
HAHAHAHA. "I'll just switch to a competing product." HHAHAHAH!!
What planet are you ON, man? "Just"? "Switch"? "Competing product"? I
can't make heads or tails of that.
How about if we talk reality instead of fishing. Bill Gates made BILLIONS
knowing that you aren't going to switch products easily unless he wants you
to. And he doesn't.
Now, if you could switch *companies* without switching *products*...
>It's hypocitical for Stallman to claim protection under copyright, and then
>declare that software piracy, itself a violation of copyright, is no more
>than ``sharing information with your neighbor''.
No, it is a violation of a private licensing agreement between two
individuals, and only pertains to copyright because it says at the beginning
of the license "This software is owned by copyright." Since your agreeing to
the license, this makes software copyright a self-reinforcing fallacy. You
aren't discussing copyright law and software, you are discussing your fear
that programmers will starve and/or that software won't get written unless its
copyrighted. And that is not the case.
As I've said before, if software weren't covered by copyright, it wouldn't
*need* licensing AND YOU'D STILL BE ABLE TO PAY FOR IT and programmers (and
companies that employ programmers as work for hire) would still make money
selling "it" to you. Except the "it" would be creation of, distribution of,
implementation of, or maintenance of software, not software itself. And, no,
it doesn't mean you'd have to deal with four different companies. Unless you
wanted to, and/or could afford it. :-)
I say let the market decide.
--
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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher Browne)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Review: Corel Office 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 04:49:49 GMT
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when David Steinberg would say:
>If it ever becomes reasonably stable, and if such ridiculous features can
>be disabled, I'll give it another look. For now, there's no way I'd spend
>$150 on that.
I might pull in a license or two specifically for Paradox; I have *zero*
interest in Yet Another Spreadsheet when Gnumeric is coming along as well
as it is.
--
"What did we agree about a leader??"
"We agreed we wouldn't have one."
"Good. Now shut up and do as I say..."
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/spreadsheets.html>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:49:37 -0400
Subject: Re: Linux stocks soar in aftermarket trading
On 04/05/2000 at 01:46 PM,
"Chad Pondscum Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So, Boob. Do you have any proof, or not?
That MS was convicted on 23 of 26 counts of violation of the Sherman Act?
I sure do. I read Judge Jackson's findings of fact and his findings of
law. They constitute a verdict. All that remains is the sentencing.
> Not that I ever doubted it, but you really are the flaming moronic idiot
> that everyone says you are.
No, you are the infantile asshole who insists on posting in a newsgroup
that does not want your gibberish.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.10 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2000 00:53:50 -0400
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 has "issues"
On 04/05/2000 at 12:11 PM,
"Chad Lying Pondscum Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> In fact, MSFT has not released a patch yet because no customers have
> complained.
You are a proven liar now Chad. Indeed, at least 2 of my customers have
filed complaints with MS over this issue as have I. You see, I have to
support the crap MS pushes and two of my clients, both ISP's have indeed
complained and loudly!
SO, you are a proven liar.
> Since this isn't a bug, it's merely an implementation detail, it's not
> worth fixing unless someone demands that functionality.
More absolute lies. About what one expects from lowlife scum like you who
are now forever known as Chad Lying Pondscum Myers. Any post with your
name is edited before being rebroadcast from here.
--
==============================================================================================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.10 Registration Number 67
As the court closes in on M$, Lemmings are morphing to Ostrats!
=============================================================================================
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
