Linux-Advocacy Digest #359, Volume #27 Mon, 26 Jun 00 23:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (r.e.ballard)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: MS Windows WM (Osugi Sakae)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: (Aaron
Kulkis)
Re: Microsoft error message (Was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh) (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: VB suck and Java rules (was: Re: Is Java 'larger' than VB ?)
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS? (Aaron Kulkis)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action
From: r.e.ballard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:18:04 -0700
O.K., the nice Europeans ripped off two entire continents from
the original population, using every form of genocide and
torture we could cook up. We're not proud of it anymore,
but it's done.
The Chinese were naturally wary of the European lifestyle. To
subjgate China and get access to Tea and Silk, the Europeans
introduced them to turkish Opium and heroin. It's pretty
easy to understand that the Chinese aren't exactly chomping
at the bit to open up trade for a bunch of two-bit drug pushers.
The chinese aren't particularly interested in becoming the
fadder of some European/American monopoly that excludes Chinese
competitors either. Microsoft is fine, just don't try to
exclude Linux.
On the other hand, Hong Kong and Singapore have established
form of capitalism rooted in the Chinese culture, yet also
grounded in open market competition.
India is a similar market. They had their fill of British
"solutions" in which the British ultimately started cultivating
hatred between the Muslims and the Hindi, a hatred Ghandi almost
lost his life trying to end.
Unfortunately, colonializm, monopolistic aims, and nearly 11
Centuries of abuse and persecution have only begun to be healed.
In Alaska, the native Athabaskan, Yupik, and Inupiak, among
others are not only encouraged to preserve their culture and
lifestyle, but they are subsidized by the annual dividend check.
Alaska shows that we can create mutually beneficial arrangements
between widely diverse cultures and still preserve those
cultures.
If we can do this successfully, and we make that the
international agenda, there will be less need for mass
migrations from one country to another. In fact, we may
find that our ability to communicate across a hemisphere in
microseconds will actually encourage us to create more
prosperity for all.
As for the original topic. No one wanted to see Microsoft
slammed around by the government. This whole adventure began
during the Reagan administration and the Reagan, Bush, and
Clinton administrations all bent over backwards, forwards, and
sideways to avoid literally turning this whole thing into
a fedral case, and a Supreme Court case at that.
It is unfortunate that Microsoft felt that, while it used fraud,
extortion, blackmail, and bribery to bankrupt competitors, expand
it's monopoly, and to openly defy antitrust laws, negotiated
agreements, federally mediated arbitrations, and sealed
settlements, it was doing "nothing wrong".
As several one horse towns watched Microsoft bleed their one
horse to death, they demanded action, as nearly 25 of the 50
states watched Microsoft bleed not only it's competitors, but
also it's customers and suppliers dry, they demanded action.
After nearly 20 years of looking the other way, letting Microsoft
get away with fraud, extortion, and obstruction of justice
through "vapor ware" announcments, censorship of negative media
coverage (through ad and co-op ad revenue control), and
nondisclosure agreements that even included forbidding responses
to disclosure investigations, federal investigators, and
subpoenas without the express written approval of Microsoft and
the presence of a Microsoft Attorney (guaranteeing that Microsoft
could always avoid embarassing disclosures during
cross-examination as in the Antitrust case.
Eventually, Microsoft went too far. They obtained code
contributed to the federal government under a public trust
agreement by the founder of a competitor company, and attempted
to lock that competitor out of the market entirely by threatening
to revoke the licenses of OEMs unless they complied with illegall
contract terms, regardless of the incentives available to the
OEM. Microsoft was telling the OEMs, I know you are supposed to
get a well balanced diet but I want you to live on cigarrettes,
whisky, and illegal drugs for 20 years. You can explain your
poor stock performance and negative earnings per share as
"fixed overhead".
Even today, with a Federal court ruling saying these actions are
illegal and you must obey the law, and a stay of forcing
Microsoft to hire it's own "prison guards" (Compliance
department), Microsoft's top executives have already started
right back into their bad habits.
They've announced Next Generation. It's not only vaporware
(fraud), it's implementation would force illegal tie-ins
intended to give Microsoft a monopoly of both the user interface
market and the server market. And Microsoft's top executives
have already defied the court by including code designed to
cause system failures of "medialess" versions of Windows 2000
if any attempt to install Linux is made. Furthermore, Microsoft
has tried to make support contracts contingent on lock-outs of
Linux (or any other competitor).
Microsoft knows that as long as they control the applications
which define office interchange standards, that users can't
switch to Linux entirely. At the same time, if they can lock
Linux out of the workstations, they can prevent the
implementation of "Dual-boot" technologies. It's a huge gamble.
It requires the Supreme Court to nullify every aspect of Judge
Jackson's rulings, to nullify antri-trust law, and to ignore
the nature of Microsoft's actions, the spirit and intent of all
previous agreements, and the spirit and intent of the current
ruling. In effect, Microsoft is asking the Supreme Court of
the United States to declare Microsoft and it's executives
"Above the Law".
Bill Clinton tried to do Microsoft a favor by trying to get 20
independent lawsuits all thrown into one big ugly basket.
Microsoft thanked him by putting speculation and illegally
leaked information about the Lewinsky affair on the top line
of the MSNBC web page, and dedicated 14 hours/day to covering
and rehashing the scandal of "whether 3rd base counts as sex".
And replayed his press conference denial as if it was his
court testimony about 10 times an hour (or so it seemed),
so that they could divert attention away from Bill Gate's
outright lies to a federal judge, admissions to federal crimes
followed by justifications on the basis that this was some sort
of "Corporate Self-defense". I found the testimony of Bill
Gates, Steve Ballmer, and Mr Alchin to be for more entertaining,
and far more worthy of national media attention that whether
the panties slipped.
And when the truth finally did come out, and it all came out how
Monica requested a lawyer and was terrorized into waiving her
right to an attorney, was subjected to surveillance based on
an illegal wiretap, and provided testimony which would have
DAMAGED the Paula Jones case (Lewinsky practically had to rape
Clinton). This was glossed over as MSNBC focused on Elian
Gonzales - cute kid, but 18 hours/day coverage for a kid who
would normally have been pushed back to cuba on his inner-tube.
How many women and children did the INS drown while MSNBC
covered Ilian playing on his swing-set.
And now, Microsoft and AOL are practically allies in a media
control game that defies comprehension. Big Brother and the
Thought Police are alive and well in 1999.
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:21:25 -0400
Robert Bennington wrote:
>
> Having been in a company where we had the contolling market power (ours was
> tabbed inside the company as 65% market share) M$ knew quite well what they
> were doing.
Of course they did. Which is why they wrote the Non-Disclosure
Agreements
the way they did ("If you tell the cops about this, you have to wait
until
we can send over a lawyer!")
GUILTY AS SIN!!!
> They simply didn't believe the government could prove a
> monopoly. It's market power that counts. Being able to make the market go
> where and when you want it to.
>
> Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On 23 Jun 2000 14:31:29 GMT, Henry Blaskowski wrote:
> > >In talk.politics.libertarian Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >But "using your weight" isn't really a crime, or shouldn't be.
> > >After all, that's really how business works. If you want a product
> > >I produce, the more you want it and the more people who agree with
> > >you, the more I can charge. In fact, MS did the opposite -- they
> > >used their weight to charge LESS in return for concessions. This,
> > >also, is a common practice in all industries.
> >
> > This is misleading. Here's a question -- if everyone's paying "less" for
> > a product, does it mean that they're really getting a discount, or does it
> > mean that the price is artificially inflated in the first place ? I
> > mean, "discounts" are all relative. If everyone gets something at a
> "discount",
> > it is no longer a discount. Quite the opposite, those that don't get the
> > "discount" are paying a punitive price penalty.
> >
> > >"Peaceful" is a term related to violence, to physical force, not
> > >to "having a product other people really, really want".
> >
> > Nonsense. There's nothing peaceful about a threat, even if the threat
> > doesn't involve physical violence. For example, blackmail is not
> "peaceful",
> > but it doesn't involve physical violence.
> >
> > >> No, it doesn't. Take a look at what the definition of a monopoly is
> > >> some time. You are wrong, both in the sense of the dictionary
> definition
> > >> and legal definition of "monopoly".
> > >
> > >I've looked up the dictionary definition, and it says "having no
> > >competitors". That is common usage.
> >
> > I guess you've got a special edition dictionary for those who cannot
> > understand big words ? Most dictionary definitions of monopoly talk
> > about "exclusive control", not 100% market share. Some also refer to
> > "owning all or almost all the market" for a given type of product/service.
> >
> > > Any legal definition that
> > >disagrees with that is immoral.
> >
> > Your opinion.
> >
> > >> Whether or not something is a monopoly is not determined by the number
> > >> of competitors, so in this instance you and the person you are replying
> to
> > >> are both wrong.
> > >
> > >If is not about the number of competitors, then the term is meaningless,
> >
> > No, it is not. It is about the level of control over the market that the
> > monopoly has.
> >
> > >and we may as well just call it "punishing success", because that's what
> > >it really is.
> >
> > No it's not. This is a straw man. Microsoft were not in court for being
> > "successful". They were not even in court for "having a monopoly". They
> > were in court for abusing their monopoly power.
> >
> > --
> > Donovan
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:22:45 -0400
MK wrote:
>
> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 15:05:15 -0400, "Robert Bennington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >Having been in a company where we had the contolling market power (ours was
> >tabbed inside the company as 65% market share) M$ knew quite well what they
> >were doing.
>
> Govt didn't prove that MS has monopoly power, govt just used the court
> to make impression. The court's reasoning is a parody of economics
> and science.
You are truly an idiot.
Did you read Judge Jackson's Findings of Fact?
Remember, Jackson is a free-market Reagan appointee.
>
> >They simply didn't believe the government could prove a
> >monopoly.
>
> They are right -- govt can't do it. Govt is basically using "becauseIsayso"
> logic.
>
> >It's market power that counts. Being able to make the market go
> >where and when you want it to.
>
> MS doesn't have such power. In "short" period of time, any conceivable
> company can do what MS does. What is the time and conditions in
> which the company will lose its customers is what economics works
> on, and it still doesn't have many answers. Govt just pretends it does
> have an answer.
>
> MK
>
> ---
>
> Involuntary redistribution is theft in coating of hypocrisy.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:27:57 -0400
Loren Petrich wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Bob Hauck <bobh{at}haucks{dot}org> wrote:
> >On 23 Jun 2000 18:39:14 GMT, Henry Blaskowski
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >>but I think he provides a plausible case; certainly more plausible
> >>than the belief that, without gov't interference, Torvald would
> >>just give up on Linux and pull it off the internet and everywhere,
>
> >Don't you find it interesting that no competitor made a dent in MS
> >market share until someone gave it away for free? We're back to the
> >argument that all competitors were stupid. The problem is that MS did
> >plenty of stuipid things too, yet they prospered.
>
> And its source code is also given away; this is a gift that
> Microsoft has never given.
>
> In fairness, it must be said that many of Microsoft's competitors
> have made grievous blunders; however, Microsoft shenanigans were very
> helpful in beating back such challenges as DR-DOS and OS/2. It's
> remarkable that M$ got IBM to not carry its own product!
>
> "BOGU" ("Bend Over and Grease Up") was how Steve Ballmer had
> described IBM's attitude toward M$ in earlier years -- however, since
> then, M$ has been making the rest of the computer business BOGU.
> Including IBM (!)
>
> As to the antitrust trial, it's curious that M$ has not adopted
> Intel's more conciliatory approach; it would have saved M$ a *lot* of
> trouble.
Because Gates is an arrogant asshole who will live his final years in
a federal penitentiary.
Ha haaaaaaaaa!
>
> --
> Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
> My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: MS Windows WM
From: Osugi Sakae <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 19:33:15 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Ok so why does Gnome keep crashing all the time?
>
>I have more of those tiny Time-Bomb icons around than I care to.
>
>
>KDE is much more stable, but doesn't look as smooth to me.
>
>Neither is anywhere near to Windows GUI for consistency with
>applications and look and feel.
>
>Not even close....
>
>
<personal opinion> After getting used to KDE, I much prefer it
to the Windows GUI. I haven't tried W2K, but the thought of my
menus changing all the time scares me. But then, I don't use
icons or the start or K menus much.
Also, I don't understand why people go on about consistancy. The
last thing I want is for my mp3 player to look and feel just
like my text editor. Each program has different uses and
different commands, so why should they all have the same buttons
in the same place? Isn't that sort of thing just a "feature" to
help new users feel more confortable / confident? Once they are
up to speed, do consistancy or look and feel matter?
</personal opinion>
--
Osugi Sakae
Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
Up to 100 minutes free!
http://www.keen.com
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:38:06 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 17:03:55 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >>
> >> On Mon, 26 Jun 2000 01:06:11 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, 23 Jun 2000 00:49:58 -0400, Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >"Mark S. Bilk" wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> >> MK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> [deletia]
> >> >> >communis (perestroika means "restructuring"...and that is exactly
> >> >> >what they did...the RESTRUCTURED COMMUNISM), wherein they pass out
> >> >> >all of the economic goodies to a few party insiders (recall the
> >> >>
> >> >> ...nah, that has been going on since at least the beginning
> >> >> of the postwar period.
> >> >
> >> >Have you been there?
> >> >
> >> >Have you talked with the people?
> >>
> >> One of my inlaws was an accountant in Belarus for ~ 40 years
> >> and worked in both manufacturing and government.
> >
> >I'm talking about anyone who lives there NOW.
>
> ...and I was pointing out the fact that a nation does not become
> a model capitalist democracy overnight and the fact that the
> Soviet Union had a long tradition of institutionalized graft and
> corruption at all levels of society.
Yes, I understand that.
However, they are making very, very few changes....
They TALK alot about changes, telling the "peaceniks" in the west
everything they want to hear...while still preparing for World War sized
military.
Something is fishy over there.
>
> [deletia]
>
> They were also feudal less than 100 years ago.
>
> --
>
> |||
> / | \
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: Microsoft error message (Was: Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:40:24 -0400
Lee Hollaar wrote:
>
> In article "Marcus Turner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Also, MS also put FALSE ERROR MESSAGES in Windows to make consumers
> >> *believe* that DR-DOS was not functioning properly, when, in fact,
> >> DR-DOS was fully 100% compatible with MS-DOS.
> >
> >That is incorrect. They put a warning message in the Beta version of
> >Win3.x, saying that this beta product hasn't been tested with this operating
> >system.
>
> It would be best, when correcting somebody, if you knew what your were
> talking about. The message that was put in the third beta release of
> Windows 3.1 (the Christmas beta) definitely didn't warn anybody that
> Windows hadn't been tested with DR DOS. Instead, what it said was:
>
> Non fatal error <number> detected. Contact beta support.
>
> See http://www.drdos.com/fullstory/factstat.html#aardm
>
> The message was included in five different components of Windows 3.1,
> including setup and the program used to start Windows. Each program
> that checked for DR DOS was a little different, and each had the
> portion that checked for DR DOS (but not that checked for OS/2)
> encrypted.
>
> >I would consider it poor programming to allow a user to install and use a
> >beta product on an untested os without at least warning them of the possible
> >problems.
>
> It would have been nice if Microsoft really did that. Instead, they put
> in an purposely-misleading message, didn't mention it in the release notes
> or other documentation, and, when beta testers asked about the message,
> didn't tell them that it was a warning about not testing with DR DOS, but
> instead told them that they should switch to MS-DOS.
regardless, it was the usual FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) technique
which they use against all competing products which actually function
correctly.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: VB suck and Java rules (was: Re: Is Java 'larger' than VB ?)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2000 02:34:05 GMT
Do they now? Bull! Where have you been?
http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2556513,00.html
http://www.zdnet.com/products/stories/reviews/0,4161,2551188,00.html
Editors' Choice: Web Platforms
>From PC Magazine
May 2, 2000
Microsoft Windows 2000
Top Ten TPC-C Results by Performance:
http://tpc.org/new_result/ttperf.idc
Learn what you are talking about before spouting of your bullshit in
here! Windows absolutely smokes Solaris and this from ZDNet which
anything but a Gates lover!
Regards
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> Ermine Todd wrote:
> >
> > >http://www.zdnet.com/eweek/stories/general/0,11011,2290989,00.html
> >
> > It should also be noted that MS's solution costs 1/4 of the
> > other submitted solutions yet totally blew away the other's
> > in terms of performance.
>
> Yep!
>
> We've gotta admit that COMPAQ is making some pretty
> sleek hardware these days. Fierce competition from
> the likes of AMD is forcing Intel to push their
> considerable ingenuity to the limit, and the networking
> hardware market has never been fiercer. The Unix
> people are really starting to feel pressure from
> this sort of computer.
>
> Still, it's a pity that they didn't try running a
> decent operating system on this beast of a machine.
> Then again, what do you expect in a Microsoft-sponsored
> benchmork, running on Microsoft-sponsored hardware,
> in a Microsoft-sponsored magazine. Somehow I suspect
> that COMPAQs agreement with Bill forbids them from
> ever performing a benchmark using Linux or Solaris
> on this setup.
>
> Microsoft openly admits that Solaris is better, but
> marketing is marketing (right?), and this benchmark
> was done to sell more copies of Windows, not to provide
> the customer with any real facts.
>
> --
> <\___/>
> / O O \
> \_____/ FTB.
>
> PS: I think you've also answered your own question
> "Why competition is good for the consumer?" Ask the
> Unix vendors if they're happy about this sort of
> hardware appearing in the marketplace.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:43:05 -0400
Jeff Szarka wrote:
>
> On 25 Jun 2000 01:19:04 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
> wrote:
>
> >>Linux is a fine little OS if you have the time for it... I don't.
> >
> >You could have gotten that Mandrake loaded in expert mode in
> >less time than it took to post all of the complaints.
>
> Actually.. when I installed it in expert mode the install took
> FOREVER. 2 hours at least.
God, you must be slow.
It takes about...oh, 10 minutes of in-person interaction, and then
you can just WALK AWAY.
If you're two freaking STUPID to get up and do something productive
with your time while the machine executes the install, that's YOUR
problem.
By the way, what was this machine? a 33MHz 386 SX?
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Do you people really think that GNU/Linux is a great OS?
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2000 22:46:00 -0400
Kevin Holmes wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Secretly Cruel
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Jeff Szarka <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>Linux is a fine little OS if you have the time for it... I don't.
> >
> > Eh? I'm new to it all and had a fully functional home workstation set up
> > in an hour. Sure, I've still got a lot to learn but I can do anything I
> > did on my Windows machine.
>
> GNU/Linux does take more time to set up properly and learn. Some of
> the hardware is troublesome getting to install. You often have to
> RTFM which is definitedly not light reading. Some of the distributions
> don't set things up properly or securely. Like having all those services
> enabled by default. At least Windows doesn't have daemons that you
> need to worry about (only email clients :).
On a "default" installation, the deamons are pre configured, so what's
your problem, moron?
>
> > ---
> > Secretly Cruel (note antispam string in email address)
> >
> > Your motherboard wears combat reboots
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
