Linux-Advocacy Digest #879, Volume #26 Sun, 4 Jun 00 08:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: windoze 9x, what a piece of shit! ("James")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (budgie)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (budgie)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (budgie)
Re: I Nuked Linux...Win 2K is Light Years Ahead. ("James")
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (budgie)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (budgie)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (budgie)
Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000 (budgie)
Re: A Better Windows ("James")
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (John Wiltshire)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (John Wiltshire)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (John Wiltshire)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (John Wiltshire)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (G. Wayne Hines)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (G. Wayne Hines)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (G. Wayne Hines)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: windoze 9x, what a piece of shit!
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 13:04:57 +0200
You're right. There really is no perfect OS. Even Win2k has given many
persons problems. I have used it at the office (on a Dell P2/350 without
problems) - for which I'm thankful. But at home I have had some problems on
my VIA-based PC. But no other OS - perhaps excluding NT4 - touches it in
terms of usability and stability. Linux may promise stability, but it does
not offer usability. For example, I loaded RHL 6.2 only to discover it does
not support USB - incredible but true (yes, I know I am supposed to upgrade
the kernel to get rudimentary USB support - as if I had infinite time to
fart around ...).
James
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> James wrote:
>
> > I have been using Win2k for 3 months (since its release), and have had
no
> > problems (actually more stable than RHL6.2). I don't know why some
people
> > insist on comparing Linux to mickey mouse OS' such as win95/98/Me, or
even
> > Win31 or DOS. Get rid of those!
> >
>
> I, on the other hand, bought Win2K right away and have had a fair number
of
> problems with it. If I cruise the web a little first, I find that I
cannot
> then run
> MS-Word or MS-Excel. They hang, and stop responding to the system.
> If I want to edit a Word document, I either have to edit it first thing
after
> rebooting, or use Abiword in Linux. When I close Explorer, MIDI playback
> breaks
> up. Somebody really goofed up the handling of Shift-Click for selecting
files.
>
> I had to give up using my Diskeeper software for defragmenting those
> oh-so-robust
> NTFS partitions.
>
> Probably, Win2000 has a problem with my machine having only 96 Mb RAM.
>
> Anyway, two contrary data points! You decide!
>
> To be fair, I can still do most of the things in Win2K that I could do
with Win
> NT 4.
>
> Chrsi
>
------------------------------
From: budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 11:14:05 GMT
On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 11:42:11 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Quoting budgie from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 03 Jun 2000 05:59:18 GMT
>Sorry. None of this is true, except all of it, of course.
Now that makes it all clear.
>But the last thing in the world that I want
>is the 'last word'.
I'd like to see that in practice some time soon.
> I would prefer the discussion continue, so that you
>may learn why you are in error, or I may do so.
The problem here is that you refuse to contemplate the possibility
that you could be wrong.
>>No, you're at it again. Their choice, as you put it, was Win95. Mine
>>wasn't. It could have been hardware and no O/S, leaving me free to go
>>with DR-DOS or other DOS-substitutes. The fact that I chose DOS/WFWG
>>was a choice. Watch my lips - "I had a choice".
>
>Keep saying it long enough and you may think it is true. Thank you for
>confirming that I was entirely correct; you choice was "Windows or
>nothing", even purchasing the system custom-built from a small OEM.
That is a choice.
>Let
>me ask you, did you have a choice of DOS 6 without Windows 3.1?
Yes
>The
>fact that an Australian in 1996 could buy a PC with no operating system
>is hardly support for your insistence that "most people on this side of
>the planet" have a choice.
It is, but of course never in your jaundiced eyes.
> Nor is the fact that their 'choice' was
>limited to "choose to bundle or choose not to bundle".
It was a choice of several bundles or un bundled siftware. Sheesh!
How much more choice?
>Americans to
>this day can build their own PC, or buy a Linux box from a number of
>small OEMs.
So can we Australians, TUVM. So what?
>Its that old "I thought 'monopoly' meant 'only one company
>in the business'" jazz. Its simply incorrect; the situation need not
>get nearly so bad before legal action is in order to stop predatory
>activities which raise artificial barriers to entry.
Which is about as far away from the original point of discussion as
you could get.
(snip)
>>I was commenting on non-domestic market asd opposed to domestic.
>>Re-read if you missed that.
>
>Well, its the domestic market that had "VCR wars". If professionals
>still use Beta, that merely proves the point, in several ways:
>
>a) Beta isn't even 'dead' as a technology
>b) Professionals obviously have different selection criteria than home
>consumers
>c) Neither technology is selected because it is tied to a brand, and no
>brand is selected because it is tied to a technology
>
>All of this supports my contention that the VHS/Beta issue is not a
>useful analogy in any way to the PC OS market.
No, it's more of your endless diversion. The point was about market
share versus technical merit. Beta's technical merit stood largely
without dispute until you (as the world expert in this area too)
seemed to challenge it. In the domestic market which I referred to,
it died and the technical merit versus market share analogy stands.
>>No, it was what I said it was. AN example of how market share and
>>subsequent market dominance is not the inevitable result of technical
>>superiority. I suspect in your search for "points" to dispute you
>>forget what has been stated or choose to lose the context.
>
>No, I'm just trying to get you to read my response, and stop ignoring
>it, as you are apparantly still doing. Not only *isn't* it a useful
>example of "market share and market dominance" as relates to PC OSes
>(VHS is a technology, not a product or a brand), but it *also* doesn't
>support the idea that consumer choices are "not the inevitable result of
>technical superiority". I've already explained what "technical
>superiority" means to the home consumer: longer play time. All you did
>was scoff. Who's being supercilious here?
Well if you think tape play length was the deciding factor in the home
VCR wars, you saw different wars to most people.
I'm sorry that you cannot or will not raed what is in front of you,
and insist on deviating everything into a different issue. You can
feel free now to have as many last words as you want.
------------------------------
From: budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 11:16:16 GMT
On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 11:42:13 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Quoting budgie from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 03 Jun 2000 06:03:07 GMT
> [...]
>>I didn't pay for Win-anything unless I chose a Win-something. I had
>>three basic choices - Win95, WFWG/DOS (or just DOS) or No_O/S. Prices
>>for each options were available. I don't know why you all seem to
>>have trouble with that situation.
>
>We have trouble understanding why you think it disputes our contention.
>You have a choice of a) Windows 4 and DOS 6, b) Windows 3.11 and DOS 6,
>c) No OS. What on earth makes you think this is evidence of a
>competitive market? How can you be so brain-dead as to think this is a
>CHOICE?
I never claimed it was evidence of a competitive market. I have not
commented to date on, nor do I intend to get drawn into comment on,
whether the O/S_software market is competitive.
I claimed it was a choice. It was.
------------------------------
From: budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 11:21:04 GMT
On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 15:42:21 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 06:03:07 GMT, budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>On 2 Jun 2000 13:14:06 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
>>>What year was this, and did you pay attention to what happened
>>>afterwards? Did you buy a PC from a major vendor in (say)
>>>1997 without paying for Win95? How many people did?
>>
>>It was 1996 IIRC. No, I bought from an Australian (obviously)
>>national chain who assembled their own boxes, with (at that time)
>
> IOW... a small player, perhaps a 'build your own box' type
> of operation typically avoided by most novice consumer types.
In our market, a large player. Believe it or not, many of your "name
brands" hardly scratch the surface here in the corporate sector, and
vitually can't/don't sell in the SOHO sector. These would be one of
the three biggest turnover national groups in our SOHO market, and
guess what - most of that volume is novice and second_time_around
buyers. They are still there four years on.
The point of this still escapes me though.
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I Nuked Linux...Win 2K is Light Years Ahead.
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 13:19:56 +0200
Geez, I recommend you get spelling lessons. You are either a spotty-faced 9
year old (although most 9 year olds are more literate). Or, most likely,
trailer trash as another reader has noted - in which case you don't need a
computer.
James
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Been trying to run Linux for about a month now and
> am getting sick and tired of it crashing, hanging
> and just plain running like shit on my puter'.
>
> Scurried down to my local shop and picked up
> Windows 2000 Professional the other day and I have
> not looked buck.
>
> Windows 2000 now occupppies the 15 gigabyte hard
> drive Linux used to inhibit.
>
> Foalks it is not even close. Windows just bloows
> away Linux for so many reesons I haven't the time
> to rite them all here.
>
> I am puzzzlled why anyon would voluntarilly want
> to run such a peece of diss-jointed garbadge as
> linux?
> Much less pay $79.00 for RedHatt.
>
> I'm happily watching Jerry Springer re-runs on my
> TV card while i am typing this. Of curse the card
> is not soppurted with linuxx.
>
> DIE-LINUX-DIE....LONG LIVE
>
WINDOWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> BET THAT SCRUED UP UR STINKY LINUX NEWSREEDERS.
>
------------------------------
From: budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 11:23:10 GMT
On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 14:24:52 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Quoting JEDIDIAH from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 03 Jun 2000 15:42:21
>>Quoting budgie from alt.destroy.microsoft; Sat, 03 Jun 2000 06:03:07 GMT
> [...]
>>>It was 1996 IIRC. No, I bought from an Australian (obviously)
>>>national chain who assembled their own boxes, with (at that time)
>>
>> IOW... a small player, perhaps a 'build your own box' type
>> of operation typically avoided by most novice consumer types.
>
>Actually, the phrase "national chain who assembled their own boxes"
>sounds more like a retail store, like a Radio Shack of Sears. Though I
>would suspect that in 1996, a national chain in Australia could be
>considered a "small player" in comparison with major OEMs, which would
>explain why they had a "no OS" option still available.
Oh for Christ's sake stick to what you know AT LEAST A LITTLE ABOUT.
Read my other response on this point.
>Does the same national chain still have a "no OS" option? I doubt it.
Yes, they do TUVM for asking.
------------------------------
From: budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 11:30:30 GMT
On 4 Jun 2000 00:57:34 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>It was 1996 IIRC. No, I bought from an Australian (obviously)
>>national chain who assembled their own boxes, with (at that time)
>>DataExpert mobos and Fujitsu monitors. The point?
>
>That you are in a tiny minority. In the states at least all
>of the large vendors were paying Microsoft for every box
>they sold even if you were going to turn it into a
>Netware server.
It is clear that our market is somewhat different from the states.
>>I didn't pay for Win-anything unless I chose a Win-something. I had
>>three basic choices - Win95, WFWG/DOS (or just DOS) or No_O/S. Prices
>>for each options were available. I don't know why you all seem to
>>have trouble with that situation.
>
>It would have been nice to have other pre-loaded choices.
I suppose. At that time here unix was a swear word, and
DOS-substitutes were more of a curiosity than a serious thing. If
they made 1% I would have been surprised.
>In the
>early 90's Dell offered pre-installed unix but dropped it later.
You wouldn't find one Dell in a hundred SOHOs here. They may be big
in the states but (as I posted earlier) that doesn't equate to
penetration here except in the corporate sector, and then not at
anything like the stateside picture that I gathered from mags at the
time.
>There is also a fair chance that even if you picked the No_O/S
>choice, your vendor was paying anyway to get the 'sell on every
>box' pricing.
Obviously I don't know what their input side costings were or whether
the mafia took a percentage. Their "standard" advertised price
included Win95 at that time. When I asked for options there was a
slight drop for WFWG/6.22, more to 6.22 only and about $A165
($US100-ish then) for the no-O/S option.
------------------------------
From: budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 11:32:17 GMT
On Sat, 03 Jun 2000 15:40:47 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Fri, 02 Jun 2000 05:09:07 GMT, budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>What a load or crap! Most people on this side of the planet CHOOSE to
>>bundle or CHOOSE NOT to bundle. I CHOSE to have the P133 fitted with
>
> Unless you were buying it as parts, or from some miniscule operation
> far too small to benefit from bulk pricing: that is highly unlikely.
>
>>6.22/3.11. Choice! Not the OEM's selection - MINE.
Your knowledge of your market clearly doesn't translate into our
market. Please read my other post on this.
------------------------------
From: budgie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.lang.basic,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: QB 4.5 in Win 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 11:33:28 GMT
On Sat, 3 Jun 2000 23:05:37 -0700, "Bob May" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Question is - Where are you finding Win3.11? That's so far obselete
>that it's sort of silly. I don't even think that you can really find
>DOS 6.22 anymore either. Places like EBay and surplus sellers don't
>count as thier supplies may disappear at any time in the second and
>you're buying used software in the first.
Bob, the reference (if you read all the post) was to a 1996 choice.
------------------------------
From: "James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Better Windows
Date: Sun, 4 Jun 2000 13:49:15 +0200
Actually a good article.
Currently, I don't think there is place for more than one desktop OS. To
facilitate multiple desktop OS' we require good standards - and most
importantly standard inter-OS device drivers. Only then can we have more
than one desktop standard. The reason is simple: application developers -
for obvious financial reasons - are always only going to focus on the
dominant OS'.
James
"Cihl" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> For the last few hours i've been watching this newsgroup, as well as
> some other related ones.
> Well, (how do i put this), if the people on these newsgroups had all
> been together in a bar, chairs would be flying all over the place and
> the police would already be on their way over!
>
> What the hell ARE you all talking about!
> I've heard some strange arguments which basically sound like "Linux is
> better than Windows!" and "Windows is better than Linux!", "linshit
> SUCKS!", "windhose SUCKS!" and stuff like that. Both OS's are
> completely being RAPED as of late, along with the English language, i
> might add.
>
> My point being: isn't the world big enough for both these OS's? What's
> the point in trying to force your opinion onto others? Nobody is
> actually going to CHANGE what they do just because you decide to
> smudge the newsgroup with shit made out of ASCII! (If you feel spoken
> to, that's because i'm talking to YOU!)
>
> If you decide you don't like Linux for a reason, you can always use
> Windows. The same goes the other way around, of course. But if you DO
> decide to criticize Linux, try doing this in a constructive manner. (A
> fellow named Pete Goodwin does this regularly. Please keep it up, and
> try not to resort to trolling.) And WHEN (and it will) -constructive-
> criticism reaches this newsgroup, the proper way to handle this would
> be to simply listen and possibly pass information through to the
> people responsible for that particular flaw. Linux is far from
> perfect, just like any other OS. It has it's own problems, which still
> need resolving.
>
> One of these ongoing problems is the documentation, as some have
> pointed out. It's relatively difficult to document Linux well, because
> there isn't a common source. Linux is developed by many different
> entities.
> In general it's a community effort; any and all help is needed. You
> could say that whining is actually very helpful to us, if you do it
> the right way.
>
> To the point:
> Linux is not a better Windows. Linux cannot, in most cases, replace
> Windows. Linux is completely different from Windows. Linux has it's
> strong points (like general stability and power) and Windows has it's
> strong points, too (like user-friendliness and OEM-support). The same
> goes for the weaker points, of course.
>
> Because of a recent "hype" around Linux an ever-increasing number of
> companies have come to rely on the GNU/Linux system. This means that
> for us it's time to start taking our responsibilities seriously and
> also to start behaving more professionally. Linux is taking it's first
> steps into the big world, but it still needs a trusted hand to keep it
> from falling to the street, so to speak.
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 11:57:05 GMT
On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 10:47:58 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(C Lund) wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, John Wiltshire
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> That's assuming MacOS stands still.
>
>Which I hope it won't. But it did stand still during most of the first
>half of the 90s.
>
>> Steve Jobs has shown that he's
>> willing to put a lot of effort into keeping MacOS a few years ahead of
>> Windows, and Linux is still a few years behind Windows. That's an
>> awfully big gap to fill.
>
>Sure. But sooner or later, the gap will be filled. I wouldn't be surprized
>if the distand future involved free opensource OSes with commercial GUIs
>riding on top - kinda like Darwin + OS X. ;)
That's not such a bad model. In a lot of ways it gives the best of
both worlds.
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 11:59:42 GMT
On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 03:47:18 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
wrote:
>On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 01:43:11 GMT, John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>That's assuming MacOS stands still. Steve Jobs has shown that he's
>>willing to put a lot of effort into keeping MacOS a few years ahead of
>
> ??? Are you kidding? MacOS has been relatively stagnant for
> awhile now to the point where Apple is in a situation where
> an outside OS needs to be brought in.
This is true from a core OS point of view. From a UI point of view
(which is what I was talking about), MacOS has continued to go
forward. OS 7 -> OS 8 -> OS 9 were all pretty decent steps in UI
terms even if the core OS never really changed.
The trick to a "new" OS is to make the UI as close to the old one as
possible that the user doesn't actually notice the change other than
perhaps a smoother ride.
>>Windows, and Linux is still a few years behind Windows. That's an
>>awfully big gap to fill.
>
> Ironically enough, the FSF started re-implementing OpenStep
> at about the same time Apple announced that it was assimilating
> NeXT.
And where is the FSF implementation compared to OS X now?
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 12:00:31 GMT
On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 04:06:33 GMT, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 06/04/2000 at 02:43 AM,
> John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> >Microsoft export sales are a drop in the bucket. We are in a worldwide
>> >economy now and the BOT is not something most economists worry about any
>> >longer.
>
>> Probably because it has been positive for so long in the US. ;-)
>
>Your arrogant ignorance is again on display. Our balance of trade has been
>in deficit for more than 40 years.
Umm... can you read the smiley on the end? Do you even understand
irony?
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 12:02:36 GMT
On Sun, 04 Jun 2000 04:11:10 GMT, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On 06/04/2000 at 02:43 AM,
> John Wiltshire <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
>> know all this. The reason most of these companies are still on the
>> older systems is because they work and the effort to change outweighs
>> the benefit. Now think if they install a new computer (most companies
>> grow). They can no longer purchase a Windows license for that machine.
>> They have to run something different to the rest of the machines. This
>> will cause a very large support and admin overhead. Increased costs mean
>> decreased profits. Negative economic impact.
>
>Wrong. Most companies have a surfeit of excess licenses which is a direct
>result of MS's policy of requiring a copy of Windows with every processor
>an OEM sold. One of our typical MS based clients has about 120 machines
>and well over 200 licenses. During 1999, we sold hundreds of machines
>thanks to Y2K, each with a Windows 98 license most of which were redundant
>licenses because they were replacing 386 and 486 machines which had
>licenses.
You'll find the 386/486 machines probably had Win3.x or Win95 licenses
and not Win98 licenses. MS hasn't required a license with each
processor since about 1995 when they got told they weren't allowed to
do that, so the licenses you are talking about are definitely not
Win98 and probably not Win95 either.
>Moreover, if BG closed down the company, who would care about licenses?
Any copyright lawyer who wanted to make some money?
John Wiltshire
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (G. Wayne Hines)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 12:01:59 GMT
In an earlier episode, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Christopher
Browne) wrote:
> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw a time when G. Wayne Hines would say:
> >Actually, I think the NS government should get on the ball and
> >try to attract MS to Cape Breton. :-)
>
> Wouldn't the Irvings complain about not being sole owners of the
> province anymore?
Wrong province. The Irvings own New Brunswick. They're working
on Nova Scotia though.
gwh
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] G. Wayne Hines #
# Team OS/2 Kentville, NS, Canada #
# I don't wanna work. I just want to ride on the train all day #
# http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/w.d.hines/express.html #
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (G. Wayne Hines)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 12:02:00 GMT
In an earlier episode, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On 06/03/2000 at 11:16 AM,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (G. Wayne Hines) said:
>
> > Actually, I think the NS government should get on the ball and try to
> > attract MS to Cape Breton. :-)
>
> ABSOLUTELY NOT. Cape Breton Island is one of the most beautiful, wonderful
> places on the face of the earth with the most friendly residents I have
> ever encountered as an alien traveller. Even Scotland is not quite as
> friendly to foreigners as Cape Breton.
>
> PLEASE don't despoil Cape Breton with the likes of Gates and his geeks.
Sorry about that Bob. I was just thinking of the employment
opportunities. Unemployment is extremely high because of the
collapse of the coal, steel and fishing industries. And, it
shouldn't take much effort to train the unemployed miners,
steelworkers and fishermen to become computer programmers as
good as those at M$. :-)
gwh
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] G. Wayne Hines #
# Team OS/2 Kentville, NS, Canada #
# I don't wanna work. I just want to ride on the train all day #
# http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/w.d.hines/express.html #
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (G. Wayne Hines)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Sun, 04 Jun 2000 12:02:04 GMT
In an earlier episode, Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Even if MS employees were raised to the equivalent in Canadian dollars of
> their US dollar salary, they will be far worse off economically. Take for
> instance, the price of a gallon of gasoline. Currently, in the US it costs
> $1.60 or so for unleaded regular. In Canada last week, I paid $3.45 US per
> gallon. If I buy a car in the US, I will pay between $0 and at most 8.5%
They must have seen you coming! In Nova Scotia, we have some of
the highest prices in the country. Regular unleaded is 72.9
cents a liter, or $3.28 CDN per Imperial gallon. That's about
$2.20 US and works out to around $1.78 US per US gallon.
--- snip ---
> Then there is the cost of tobacco. A carton of cigarettes costs me $20.05
> in Pennsylvania for 10, 20 cigarette packages. In Canada, they are more
> than $5.00 US per PACK!
"Sin tax" is a major cash cow for the government. You shouldn't
smoke unless you're on fire. :-)
> Fast food costs about 30% more in Canada that at the same brand restaurant
> in the US. One cannot get a drink of many major international brands of
> whiskey in Canada because Canada limits booze to 80 proof. Eighty proof
> Gordons just ain't a reasonable substitute for 100 proof Bombay Gin.
> Canadian Club just ain't a reasonable substitute for Jack Daniels Black.
Some is 80 proof, some is 86 proof, some 100 proof. My favourite
is the 151 proof rum. :-)
> I don't know if what I experienced in both Cape Breton Island, Quebec,
> Halifax, and Ottowa hotels is typical of what individual Canadian
> subscribers experience, but my choices of TV programming were far more
> limited than what I would find in a similar quality hotel in the US or
Basic cable may have 20 or so channels, then there are
specialty channels for which you pay extra, then there are the
"pay per view" channels. In this province it's basically like
Bruce Springsteen said "57 channels and nothing on". In most
rural areas and even in urban areas, people have satellite
dishes
gwh
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] G. Wayne Hines #
# Team OS/2 Kentville, NS, Canada #
# I don't wanna work. I just want to ride on the train all day #
# http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/w.d.hines/express.html #
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
