Linux-Advocacy Digest #35, Volume #27 Mon, 12 Jun 00 03:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north (Bob Germer)
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Canada invites Microsoft north ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Canada invites Tholen north ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451708 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 12 Jun 2000 00:02:00 -0500
In article <FeM05.4772$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>No, no, the improvements are the means by which they take
>more money from the consumers.
No, that would be FUD.
>> If you define creativity as taking as much money as possible
>> from consumers, you are right - it doesn't do that.
>
>I consider open source uncreative because it confines itself
>to re-implementing that which has already been implemented
>before- only for free this time.
>
>That is boring.
Then I don't understand your fascination with Microsoft. They
confine themselves even more strictly to re-implementing things
that have been done before. Start with the original MS-Basic:
nothing new - just done to run on cheaper hardware than
the original. Likewise, MSDOS was a cheaper functional equivalent
to CPM/86, Windows a cheaper GUI than a MAC, and all of the
things that these do had already been done on bigger, more
expensive hardware before. So, Microsoft cheapens things;
Linux frees them. The latter isn't more boring - it is just
the ultimate conclusion.
And you are wrong about open source in general. Where were the
prior non-free implementations of sendmail, apache, perl, BIND,
ldap and the dozens/hundreds of things that originated as open
source even before the term became fashionable? And what current
commercial work matches the GNOME development using CORBA for IPC
among components?
>[snip]
>> >I don't see how WINE is much a solution for that, though.
>>
>> Why should I have to put up with the annoyances of installing
>> windows and keeping it working just to be able to be sure
>> I will be able to read a .doc file?
>
>I dunno. Maybe you should try to get whoever provides your
>word-processor to support Words format better.
I'm not convinced that is possible. Has anyone done it?
>> When WINE is complete
>> it won't be necessary to run windows to run windows apps.
>
>Well, that's okay, but I though you *disliked* the Windows apps.
No, I dislike being forced to buy and update them just to
stay compatible with where the monopoly has gone today.
And I dislike the dll-hell problems of keeping a windows box
running as you load and update a variety of applications.
>[snip]
>> It isn't an issue of 'good enough', it is whether it can deal
>> with data files in formats that change rapidly for no good reason.
>
>They don't rapidly change. Haven't changed in years.
Compared to what? They have changed many times during the
popularity of a single CPU type. More sensible software
allows the data files to span the overlapping lives of many
different CPUs.
>They are documented. What is the problem?
>From the lack of 100% compatibility even from otherwise perfectly
good software companies, I have to assume the documentation is
misleading or they are doing things that normal software shouldn't
do.
>[snip]
>Well, they did publish a standard abstraction, one that is substantiallyd
>different from a standard printer language.
>
>I think that this worked *better* than re-inventing the concept of
>PostScript.
You don't re-invent a standard, you license it or re-implement it.
>Windows did a bit better, because it at least understood that such
>mismatches and high resolutions were possible. It needed
>TrueType too, though.
Why did it need TrueType? Postscript fonts work just fine and
several packages seem to think it is necessary to install ATM
and a new set of fonts so they can used postscript instead.
>> If Windows used postscript as the printing abstraction, it would
>> not be. But it wouldn't serve the purpose of making it difficult
>> to mix Windows with standard equipment either.
>
>Sure it would. Winprinters drivers would still be magic mystery boxes
>that turn bitmaps into printer control somehow. Only the
>source of the bitmap would differ.
Yes, the source could be anything that understood postscript, not
just windows apps.
>You must understand, todays winprinters do not interpret GDI
>commands; they use a thing called the 'raster driver' to do that
>for them. It is doing for them what GhostScript does for you.
Of course, but it would be transparent as to whether the printer
itself did it or the main CPU, as it is when filtering through
ghostscript. Anything could send it postscript output.
>> Right - you are better off using a standard abstraction in the
>> printer itself so it can do its own rendering.
>
>No, that makes the printer rather more expensive. And not just
>because of Adobe's licensing. PostScript isn't trivial to
>interpret, it is a fairly rich graphics language.
>
>The point of winprinters is to be *cheap*.
A trade-off beween using main memory/CPU and printer memory/CPU.
For a rarely used printer it makes sense to take the hit - for a
busy one it doesn't. And it never makes sense to use one that
only windows apps can send to.
>[snip]
>> >Well, okay. I'm surprised you are not more concerned, if it is
>> >your personal machine.
>>
>> The 'toy-for-the-kids' function under windows has been taken
>> over by a different machine.
>
>Oh, so you no longer use Windows then?
Only when necessary for file compatibility, and I'm testing WINE
for that.
>Then I guess there's no reason to worry about it?
I consider it a lost cause.
>[snip]
>> >I wasn't talking about the knowledge base; I find that rather
>> >hit or miss- a great pile of 'knowlege', but not so much 'base'-
>> >good mainly for bug reports, in my experience.
>> >
>> >I meant MSDN; the knowledge base is but a small fragment
>> >of that.
>>
>> This was with a complete search, and several Windows developers
>> where I work also tried to find a solution. The Knowledge base
>> was the only mention of the fact that some NIC's just don't
>> work.
>
>I have a feeling it was a bug report hat by then had not been resolved.
I think I understand the issue: the load-balanced NICs must appear
to have the same MAC address as well as IP address and it is pure
black magic as to how they agree which one is going to answer a
new connection request. The problem is that the software must
set the NIC's MAC address, and some do not allow it. However, I
and some other people who knew their way around better could not
find any reasonable description of this issue or resolution anywhere.
If they didn't expect this problem, what does that say about their
understanding of ethernet cards?
>[snip]
>> It doesn't take any special fiddling in the desktop folder. I
>> manipulate the contents as files, not special menu contents.
>
>This is how things like the start menu and toolbar work in
>Windows- they are folders and can be manipulated as such.
>Is KDE different?
Where are they? Since the program menu has its own arcane
interface to manipulate items, I assumed the toolbar did too.
>> But,
>> I always access it from the toolbar copy because it is quicker.
>> If the file manager treated menu items the same as files, that
>> would be just as good.
>
>That is how Windows works. Next time you are on Windows,
>right click on the start menu or one of the icon toolbars- the
>"open" command opens that toolbar (or start menu) as
>a folder.
Ah - I can get about what I want by copying a folder to the
start menu where it will pop out like a limited set of
the program menu. Not quite as handy as straight off the
toolbar, but close enough. Why did they bother with a
different interface to add/remove things?
>[snip]
>>
>> The Dell I just got came with something called 'Works Suite 2000'
>> which includes Word 2000. I guess even Microsoft gave up on
>> the problems of dealing with Word incompatibility.
>
>I found this with a web search. Apparently they've released a bundle
>with Word *and* Works together.
>
>Standard practice- they sell a weak product (Works) by bundling it
>with a stronger one (Word).
>
>Some articles suggest they are deep sixing the execrable Works
>word processor entirely. This is progress. Now if only they'll deep
>six the rest of it. :D
All that's left is the spreadsheet and database, which probably
doesn't matter much for home use. They've added Money, Home
Publishing, Encarta, and Streets & trips. The annoying thing
is that the disks are simply numbered 1 through 8, but the
programs that need CD data (streets, encarta) ask for them
by name.
>> And by the way for anyone who thinks windows is easy to set up,
>> this box came with a total of 21 CD's and a few floppies.
>
>That is *very* strange. Most new PCes I set up have two
>or three CDs with them. 21 is way over the top.
>
>> Most of these have several separate things that ask or force
>> you to reboot as you add each piece.
>
>That is most unusual. Where'd you get it?
>From Dell. The biggest chunk is the 8-disk works set, and there
are separate drivers/apps for the DVD, CDRW, and all the other
components. It all came pre-installed, of course, but it looks
like it would take a good 3 days to reconstruct the thing from
the CDs.
>> Anyone
>> using another program has to assume that someday, probably
>> soon, they will start getting files they can't read. Again.
>
>And they'll need to upgrade their own product, or get a plug
>in for it, or something- just like with Word.
Oh, I don't think Microsoft minded selling everyone the
upgrades... But by definition theirs was ready to sell
the day they made it necessary.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 05:26:32 GMT
On 06/11/2000 at 02:09 PM,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lars Tr=E4ger) said:
> I couldn't find the "US" definition of "liberal" in any english
> dictionary - looks like the Americans don't speak English. Anyway,
> Germer is not a liberal, but his definition of liberal is. The word
> defined before liberal also fits his - libel: a written ...
> representation that gives an unjustly unfavorable impression of a ...
> thing.
Then you didn't look at a dictionary of political terms. And your posts
are useful only to demonstrate the total inanity of brains damaged by lon=
g
exposure to cold weather. The US and Great Britain made a mistake or two
in WW II. We didn't let the Germans keep Denmark or France. The world
would be a better place had we done that.
--
==========================================================================
=====================
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice 2.19zf Registration Number 67
==========================================================================
====================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 06:25:24 GMT
Tinman writes:
>>>>>>>>> [oh well, it's hot out there anyway]
>>>>>>>> Irrelevant.
>>>>>>> Not to my garden.
>>>>>> This newsgroup is not your garden.
>>>>> Irrelevant, the reference is to my garden, not this newsgroup.
>>>> Illogical, given that the posting is in this newsgroup, not your
>>>> garden.
>>> Usenet posts need not be solely self-referential.
>> But we're talking about the irrelevance of your statement, not
>> about USENET posts in general.
> Illogical.
Incorrect.
> My reference was to my gardening, not to usenet.
Your posting was on USENET, not in your garden.
>>>>>>>>>> Tinman writes:
>>>>>>>>> Typical inaccuracy,
>>>>>>>> Incorrect.
>>>>>>> On the contrary.
>>>>>> Is that the best you can do, merely stating contrariness?
>>>>> Can you do better?
>>>> I see that you didn't answer the question. No surprise there.
>>> I see that you didn't answer the question. No surprise there.
>> Classic evasion.
> I learned from a master of evasion.
Who might that be?
>>>>>>>>> It's tinman.
>>>>>>>> Which is how I spelled it to begin with.
>>>>>>> Incorrect, you spelled it Tinman,
>>>>>> Same spelling.
>>>> Note: no response.
>>> None required,
>> On what basis do you make that claim?
> Don't you know?
Why do you think I asked?
>>> you spell it incorrectly with a capital "t",
>> On what basis do you make that claim?
> See your attribution above, you use a capital "t," which is incorrect.
On what basis do you call it incorrect?
>>> I spell it correctly with a lower case "t."
>> On what basis do you make that claim?
> See my sig, I use a lower case "t," which is correct.
On what basis do you call it correct?
>>>>>>> and you did it again above.
>>>>>> I'm being consistent in my spelling, which is consistent with your
>>>>>> spelling.
>>>>> Nope.
>>>> Incorrect. Compare the spellings.
>>> I have, thus I recognize your errors.
>> Incorrect, given that both spellings are the same.
> Illogical,
Incorrect.
> they are distinguishable,
Not the spellings, given that they are the same.
> and thus not identical.
On the contrary, the spellings are the same.
>>>>> But if you prefer, you made a capitalization error--
>>>> On what basis do you call it an error?
>>> On the basis of the knowledge of how it should be done.
>> But I spelled it the same way.
> Incorrect
Balderdash.
> and irrelevant,
On the contrary, the spelling is quite relevant.
> since even if I agreed that the error was not a spelling error,
> it is still an error (of capitalization).
On what basis do you call it an error?
> Regardless of which tack we take, you have (persisted) in making an
> error.
Incorrect.
>>>>> regardless, it's still incorrect.
>>>> On your part.
>>> Incorrect.
>> An example of pontification.
> Also incorrect.
Another example of pontification.
>>>>> And you keep repeating this error.
>>>> You're erroneously presupposing that it is an error.
>>> Nope.
>> Prove it.
> I already have.
Where, allegedly?
>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not falling into another tholenesque spiral this week,
>>>>>>>>>> What alleged "tholenesque spiral"?
>>>>>>>>> The tholenesque spiral in which we find ourselves at this very moment.
>>>>>>>> Incorrect; that would be a "tinmanesque" spiral, given that you
>>>>>>>> started it.
>>>>>>> Incorrect on two counts--
>>>>>> Balderdash, for reasons given below.
>>>> Note: no response.
>>> None required, as there is no content in your sentence.
>> Incorrect, given the content of my sentence.
> What alleged "content"?
DT] Balderdash, for reasons given below.
>>>>>>> I didn't start this thread,
>>>>>> Irrelevant, given that I didn't say that you starting this thread.
>>>>> Typically incomprehensible, "given that I didn't say that you starting
>>>>> this thread" makes no sense.
>>>> How ironic, coming from the person who doesn't realize what I didn't
>>>> say.
>>> Typically incomprehensible, is English your first language?
>> Irrelevant. You're just trying to evade the issue.
> Not at all,
Then why haven't you addressed the fact that I didn't say that you
started this thread?
> I am pointing out your lack of control of the English language
You are failing to point out my control of the English language.
> and seeking information as to others of which you might have better
> control.
Irrelevant. You're just trying to evade the issue.
>>> What are your others, perhaps we could try them?
>> Unnecessary.
> Incorrect. You've demonstrated a lack of control of the English language.
On the contrary, I've demonstrated control of the English language.
>>>>>>> and it is clearly in a tholenesque mode of discourse.
>>>>>> An example of pontification.
>>>>> Correct, but uninteresting, since all tholenesque modes of discourse are
>>>>> examples of pontification.
>>>> Classic circular reasoning.
>>> Another feature of all tholenesque modes of discourse.
>> Illogical, given that you are the one engaging in it, thus it would be
>> a "tinmanesque" mode of discourse.
> Incorrect, this is not my normal mode of discourse.
On what basis do you make that claim?
> I have adapted to your native mode
Incorrect; do you even know what my "native mode" is?
> for the purposes of my entertainment.
Which qualifies you for digestification.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 06:26:15 GMT
Christopher Smith writes:
> Is a balderdash what grows if you bury a Tholen ?
Illogical.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Canada invites Microsoft north
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 06:28:17 GMT
Chris Pott writes:
>>>>>>> I'm not falling into another tholenesque spiral this week,
>>>>>> What alleged "tholenesque spiral"?
>>>>> The tholenesque spiral in which we find ourselves at this very moment.
>>>> Incorrect; that would be a "tinmanesque" spiral, given that you
>>>> started it.
>>> Irrelevant, given that the characteristics of said spiral are not
>>> dependent on whom initiated it.
>> Illogical, given that the said spiral was given a name.
> Incorrect,
Balderdash.
> given that the name is based on the characteristics of said
> spiral, rather than its instigator.
On the contrary, the name is based on its instigator.
>>> (Yes, I'm jumping into discussions again.)
>> Why?
> Don't you know?
Why do you think I asked?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Canada invites Tholen north
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 06:31:21 GMT
Eric Bennett writes:
>> But we're talking about the irrelevance of your statement, not
>> about USENET posts in general.
> What alleged "statement"?
The one he made, Eric.
>> Classic evasion.
> Evidence, please.
Witness his failure to address the issue, Eric.
>>> I spell it correctly with a lower case "t."
>> On what basis do you make that claim?
> More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
Balderdash, Eric.
>> Incorrect, given that both spellings are the same.
> Of what relevance is that remark?
It's of relevance to his claim that I spelled it incorrectly, Eric.
>> Illogical, given that you are the one engaging in it, thus it would be
>> a "tinmanesque" mode of discourse.
> Get a life, Dave.
How ironic. Practice what you preach, Eric.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451708
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 06:41:26 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. Note how he tries to blame me for
his misunderstanding of what I wrote. He clearly claimed that I
lied when I noted that he didn't reciprocate when I ignored him
for over a year. He clearly claimed that he reciprocated. Yes,
he's too embarrassed to admit that he, in fact, did not reciprocate.
Note how he also avoids the illogic of his claim that he'd have
little reason to "frequent these precincts" if I wasn't here, yet
he doesn't frequent the other "precincts" where I appear.
78> Tholen tholes:
78>
78> Typical pontification.
78>
78> Typical pontification.
78>
78> I suggest you actually *read* how you typed the word.
78>
78> Typical stupidity. It figures.
78>
78> Typical pontification and typically wrong-headed: tinman defined the
78> spiral -- the dance of boredom -- you two are in: a typically tholenesque
78> downward spiral.
His definition ignores the fact that it was he who started the spiral,
thus it is properly named after him, Malloy.
79> Here's today's Tholen digest. Note how he continues to avoid the matter of
79> some alleged reciprocating deal when in fact it is he who completely
79> misinterpreted my intentions.
It was you who completely misunderstood what I wrote, Malloy. Why else
would you lie by calling me a liar after I had made a truthful statement?
79> Yes, he's too embarrassed to admit that he,
79> in fact, did not establish the parameters of my offer and he tries to
79> obfuscate this fact in poor style.
79>
79> To wit, here's a summary of everything he said of value:
79>
79> [0]
79>
79> Ooops, that's it! Thanks for reading!
80> Today's Tholen digest is pitiful, just pitiful.
CLassic pontification.
80> Gone (hooray!) is the feisty Tholen of yesteryear, the Tholen that
80> tholenated a digestification at great length.
Still using made-up words, eh Malloy? What you wrote could mean
anything. Or more likely, nothing.
80> Instead we have, in its entirety:
80>
80> The answer, dear Tholen, is that we're not here to entertain you. [chortle!]
That doesn't preclude the possibility that you're here to entertain
yourselves.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
