Linux-Advocacy Digest #912, Volume #27 Mon, 24 Jul 00 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance? (The Contact)
Re: MS Windows(tm) is prerequisite for Linux on-line seminar (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: No win situation for Linux market (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!! (fungus)
Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Can we qualify the versions please!!! (Arthur Frain)
Re: Leninist Idiot Loren Petrich refuses to see reality (Zoo Life)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen) (Eric Bennett)
Re: Star Office to be open sourced (Rich Teer)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 24 Jul 2000 15:43:26 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Software, however, is entirely and exclusively
>functional. So why is it copyrightable?
Perhaps because Congress said it is?
If you're looking for consistent treatment of different types of works,
then don't look at the Copyright Act. It is a series of compromises
and special rules, for things like juke boxes and cable television and
computer programs.
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 10:54:58 -0500
Perry Pip wrote:
> >And that makes me (and the above poster) a sociopath? Yeah, OK.
> >Whatever.
>
> Problem is more than half the country is sociopathic just like you and
> the other poster are. You don't want to take reponsibility. You just
> want to blame it all on someone else. The last thing you want to do is
> actually work with your fellow men and women to make a better world.
I say government is fucked up, list my reasons, and it still makes me a
sociopath. And again, our government may be better than others, but it
sure as hell is not the best possible solution. You're right about one
thing though. I'm not going to waste my life trying to improve
government. I've got things to do that allow me to feel like I've
actually accomplished something. Maybe I don't spend all of my time
trying to improve government, but that doesn't mean I am not trying to
improve the world. There are other things one can do. Personally, at
the moment I see tackling the problems of government impossible. I, as
an individual wouldn't matter. I in a group, still wouldn't matter.
Why, because that group (Republicans/Democrats) will use my little
number of 1 and say that I agree with them on every issue. More than
likely I won't. And helping either side isn't going to help the
problems as they exist. We need a serious governmental shake-up. I'm
not going to be the person to implement it.
As I said, I have better things to do with my time. And your bigotted
view of me doesn't really bother me. I've been called far worse by
people on usenet (look at my latest go around with T. Max if you don't
believe me). But the idea that people use totally illogical conclusions
as *evidence*, see every statement (even opinions) as a *call to arms*
or provocation to debate, and seem to think that usenet is all about
fighting, and nothing to do with *people* is just too much for me at
times.
Is it really necissary to tell every person in here that they are
wrong? Everyone has a different strong suit. Everyone has a different
veiwpoint. Yes, I'm bowing out of the conversation. Yes, I am
admitting that I lost the debate. Why? Because I wasn't trying to
debate. I was expressing my viewpoint. I don't understand why a
*different* view always has to be a *wrong* view. I disagree with you.
In your opinion, that makes me a sociopath. In my opinion, it makes us
different.
Humanit on the whole has a swelled head. Just read usenet for proof.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:51:03 GMT
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 15:53:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- snip --
> >But "what you've found" is irrelevant to Joe and Jane Average
> >Consumer, because they still shop at the "easy stores" (your words)
> >which, as you have admitted, MS has "sewed up pretty tight." (See
> >above)
>
> The choice is out there. There are plenty of stores they can go to
> (granted, not the big stores) if they want. And you have not shown
> that BB can't bring in a Linux box or a BeOS box if they wanted to -
> if it would sell. I believe they haven't because it wouldn't sell,
> and it's a simple and fair business decision.
Why are you still arguing? You have ***ALREADY ADMITTED*** that MS has
the retail channel "sewed up pretty tight." What this means is that
it's very hard to get retail shelf space in the "easy stores" --
including "penguin powered machines."
-- snip --
> >What part of "retail channel" has *you* confused? Do you seriously
> >think that CompUSA and Wal-Mart and Best Buy decide which OS gets
> >installed on those Compaqs, Packard Bells, HPs and IBMs they sell?
>
> Do you seriously believe CompUSA couldn't call up LinuxCare (or
> someone that makes Penguin-powered machines) and have a few thousand
> delivered to their markets? There's NO DEMAND for it. CUSA, BB, CC,
> etc. are all very powerful retailers. If they wanted it, they can get
> it. If there was demand for it, they would have.
Chicken and Egg; there is "no demand" (actually there is demand,
otherwise, why would Dell, IBM, etc, be offering Linux?) in the "easy
stores" because Joe and Jane General Consumer don't know they have a
choice, because, as you have ***ALREADY ADMITTED*** MS has the retail
channel "sewed up pretty tight."
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: The Contact <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Samba vs NT, which gives best PCs / Server Performance?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:01:37 GMT
Glenn Reed wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can someone advise me here? Does NT outperform Linux running Samba
> for file and print services? I am assuming the same specification
> machine.
>
> Lets say a late model Pentium with 128MB of memory, 10Mb/s network
> card acting as a local area network server to about 10 client PC's
> running a mixture of windows 95 and windows 98.
I don't know which one will do the best, but Samba will have no problems
on that configuration...
> I know of one organisation with a configuration like this and they are
> using Windows NT. They are thinking of purchasing another 10
> computers but they are told they will have to increase the RAM in
> their server in order to be able to handle the extra load.
That's the disadvantage of Windows. Each 'surplus' needs more power,
more memory. It's one of the things that NT (and others) lacks: good
memory handling (and I can feel a thread coming up :-P
> How would Samba compare in a similar situation? Would it require a
> RAM increase?
No, not if you use the PC solely as a Samba server (not as a workstation
or something similar). You should configure it wisely though.
> I have heard that Linux is more memory efficient,
True, true.
> partly because it doesn't have to tie up memory in managing a GUI
> interface if you don't want to. Is this correct?
And again true.
> And then I have heard that Linux doesn't have a multi-threaded TCP\IP
> stack and therefore can't compete with NT. What do the people out
> their think?
I heard that MS's TCP/IP is a little bit different to the normal TCP/IP.
It's still compatible though.
I don't know the concept of multi-threaded TCP/IP, but I would be
surprised if Linux' TCP/IP would be less than MS's, since TCP/IP under
Linux is thoroughly tested and adjusted, and because Linux is more
networking-based that NT...
--
The Contact
"Knowing everything is impossible. Trying to is not."
[- [EMAIL PROTECTED] -]
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Windows(tm) is prerequisite for Linux on-line seminar
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:05:30 -0500
Cihl wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> > How about a web site dedicated to similar stories:
> >
> > http://www.rinkworks.com/stupid
> >
> > They have a BUNCH of stupid tech support stories. Of course, in the
> > case I described above it was more about the fact that even the
> > "sellers" of software don't have a clue, I think a lot of the stupidity
> > can be seen as a result of the same flaw in human nature. "If I don't
> > know it, it must not exist." Reminds me of some other people I've seen
> > in here....
> >
> > --
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Nathaniel Jay Lee
>
> I just read some of the stories in there. Really funny! :-))
>
It's only funny if you forget that somewhere out there is someone stupid
enough to do the things described. If you're kind of mopy about the
human condition, it's not a good idea to read through it. Luckily, I
was feeling like to dumb humor when I first stumbled across it. :)
> --
> You have changed the signature included in your e-mail.
> For these changes to take effect, you must restart your computer!
> Do you wish to restart your computer now?
> [YES] [NO]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: No win situation for Linux market
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:07:55 -0500
My original reply on this thread has been posted on Linux.com.
Apparently someone up there liked my response that day.
I know it's not Hollywood, but I think I just got my fifteen minutes of
fame (in Linux-land anyway). Does that mean I have to cash it in now?
:(
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun revenues up WHOPPING 42% !!!
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:12:49 GMT
D'Arcy Smith wrote:
>
> IE 5.5 definatly gives a stupid error message (make that a "user friendly"
> error message - it tells you that the page cannot be found... leaves out
> any trace of an error code). IIRC IE 5.0 introduced that "feature".
>
...specifically so that HTML errors on microsoft.com didn't
say "Apache" anywhere in the error message?
It wouldn't surprise me.
--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: From a Grove of Birch Trees It Came...
Date: 24 Jul 2000 16:21:42 GMT
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 15:21:28 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>Right...they just gave the money back for no apparent fucking reason.
They gave it back because there were some questions raised regarding its origin.
There's no proof that they knowingly accepted donations from the Chinese govt.
BTW, if the republicans care so much, WHY DON'T THEY PUSH A CAMPAIGN FINANCE
REFORM BILL THROUGH ?
The republicans campaign donations would not hold up under rigorous scrutiny.
The fact that most of them seem dead set against it would seem to indicate that
ruling out unscrupulous conduct would penalise them more than the demcorats.
>> BTW, the Chinese communists are die hard Richard Nixon fans.
>
>Regardless, Beijing and Moscow are VERY closely allied.
The relevence to the democrats being ???
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: Arthur Frain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Can we qualify the versions please!!!
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 08:53:35 -0700
Spud wrote:
> "Arthur Frain" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Spud wrote:
> > > > The original config was correct when the crash
> > > Sheer assertion, or did you actually examine it?
> > -----------------------
> > I already replied to entire post, but I would
> > like to point out one thing about the above
> > excerpt. The line attributed to me (with the
> > >>) originally read:
> > >> The original config was correct when the crash
> > >> happened. I checked all of that stuff when I
> > >> setup the User ID and Workgroup names.
> > Seems to me Spud prefers to make debating
> > points by editing and misquoting.
> Not quite; I mentioned a very specific and not usually used method of
> checking;
You mentioned "examine" - I fail to see how that's
"very specific and not usually used".
> to date I haven't seen you state that yes, in fact, you
> checked using that method. As such, the latter half of the statement
> you made wasn't relevant.
Ooooh - secret MCSE knowledge? Fact is, I used
the tools Windows provides and an average user
would use to verify the setup. Those tools
indicated the setup was intially correct and
at that time networking worked (although Network
Neighborhood still crashed). After a reboot,
those same tools indicated Win98 had changed
the setup to be incorrect, and networking
didn't work.
> > Why don't I find this surprising?
>
> You should; I don't snip to misquote; when I do snip, it's to remove
> the stuff I'm not responding to. In this case, it was the part about
> "I'd already checked that", since it wasn't relevant to the question
> being asked - namely did you check it a _specific way_?
Which specific way is that? You haven't
specified a specific way specificially,
other than "examine".
> Now perhaps you did, in fact, state that you had used that method, and
> I managed to overlook such a statement; if so, that's my fault, and I
> apologize.
You probably should.
Arthur
------------------------------
From: Zoo Life <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Leninist Idiot Loren Petrich refuses to see reality
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:41:28 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Loren Petrich wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >Loren Petrich wrote:
> >
> > >> >> The birch trees I have in mind are John Birch trees :-)
> > >> >Are you implying that there is a birchy-man hiding under our
> > >> >collective
> > >> >beds?
> > >> No, that your views are childish, Red-under-the-bed conspiracy
> > >> theories.
> >
> > >Why did the Chinese Communists contribute over $3,000,000 to the
> > >Democrats?
> >
> > First, that issue is *TOTALLY* separate from the question of
> > whether the Communist are lurking behind the scenes in the former Soviet
> > empire.
>
> Beijing and Moscow are quite buddy-buddy these days. In fact, Russia
> is currently building several warships for China. Or are you going to
> deny this FACT also.
I looked up the word "fact" and it said, "anything Aaron R. Kulkis posts to usenet."
Then I looked up "reality" and danged if it didn't say, "whatever Aaron R. Kulkis
'sees'."
hth,
zl
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:29:05 GMT
In article <8l58vb$hbf$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8l4e9j$n96$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <8l4a58$96j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-- snip --
> > Given that MS-Cheerleaders have a decidedly skewed view of Reality,
> > rational discussion seems fruitless.
>
> Given that anti-MS zealots have a decidedly skewed view of Reality,
> rational discussion seems fruitless.
> I am not an "MS-Cheerleader", I'm simply pointing out the simple fact
> that machines without Windows, without an OS, or with your OS of
> choice have *always* been available.
To hard-core geeks, yes. I have already said as much, but we are talking
about Joe and Jane General Consumer and the typical retail channel,
which dc has already admitted that MS has "sewed up pretty tight."
> You'll have to work hard to convince me the computers I've bought in
> the past without any OS and with OS/2 don't exist.
And you'll have to work really hard to prove that you are really paying
any attention to this discussion.
> > Until very recently, your statement was simply untrue.
>
> False.
Uh-huh. "Proof by Proclamation" strikes again.
> > Unless you built your own machine from parts, or went to the most
> > obscure hole-in-the-wall mom-n-pop computer shop in the county,
> > there was no way to not buy Windows bundled with your computer.
>
> False. Certainly big names like Dell, Compaq etc weren't carrying
> non-Windows PCs, but that's because they cater to the majority market,
> and the majority market is only interested in Windows.
No, they cater to Microsoft, who dictates licensing terms. Obviously,
you haven't been paying atention to the trial.
> Or would you like to see the government leaping into and controlling
> the computer retail market, forcing vendors to carry products with
> little demand and wear the extra cost, as you would like to see the
> government jump into and control OS design ?
I would like to know where you guys get these fallacies. For starters,
Government is already involved; Government is what allows MS to exist as
a Corporation in the first place. If MS doesn't wanna play by the rules
of Government (which is solely responsible for MS' very existence in the
first place) then MS has to answer to Government.
Also, Government's first order of business has to be self-preservation.
If some uppity Corporation starts getting arrogant and breaking Laws
with appparent impunity, amassing a substantial power base in the
process, then it's Government's duty to keep that Corporation in check.
If you don't like that, then go start some other planet and run it any
way you want.
> > This is fine for hard-core geeks, but wrt Joe and Jane Average
> > Consumer, this meant that there was no choice.
>
> There was no choice because.....there was no choice. Until very
> recently the viable alternatives to Windows were the Mac, and that's
> about it.
Is this where I'm supposed to simply declare "FALSE?"
DR-DOS, OS/2, GeoWorks GEOS, were available, as were others. The *only*
reason why there weren't "viable" is because MS already had a lock on
the preload market.
> Even today, the only really viable option to Windows is Mac. This is
> not Microsoft's fault, no matter what you might think.
"FALSE." (See above)
> Are you seriously trying to contend that Linux 1.2.xx based distros
> were real competition to Windows and Mac ?
I don't recall saying, or even implying as much.
-- snip --
> > MS *has* been found guilty of criminal behavior. The proposed
> > solution is dubious, obviously, but until they win on appeal or in
> > the Supreme Court, MS are criminals.
>
> Yes, well, by your much touted legal system OJ is an innocent man.
"Much touted" by whom, exactly?
But yes, you are partially correct; OJ was found "Not Guilty" by our
system. Too bad, but the fact that everyone is convinced of OJ's alleged
guilt is irrelevant to the actual case, and is representative of why we
have such a system. I suppose we could just rely on lynch mobs to
appease people such as yourself who would elect themselves Judge, Jury
and Executioner, and simply hang OJ from the highest branch of the
nearest tree without a trial.
But, I digress. Perhaps you could explain how "Guilty Until Proven
Otherwise" OJ was able to put up a defense credible enough to instill
that "small shadow of doubt," which is all that is required to prevent a
Guilty verdict, but multi-billionaire Golden-Boy Gates and his motley
crew could not? After all, Gates and MS has one f*ck of a lot more money
to spend on Dream Team attorneys, yet they failed to instill even that
"small shadow of doubt."
Oh, I forgot, the Judge had it in for them, in spite of being a Reagan
appointee.
Yup, you really got me there.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
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: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:52:19 GMT
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:49:28 GMT, Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[snip]
>> >Yes- they are free to tie whatever they want with their software
>(*including
>> >a ham sandwich), and it is their right to have their product distributed
>in
>> >a un altered state.
>>
>> They are free to have that right if there motivation is benefit to the
>> consumer, not if there motivation is to limit competition.
>
>I am pretty sure that copyright law doesn't say anything about their
>*motivation*; And anyway, if being *greedy* were grounds for a
Actually, the copyright clause of the US Consitution quite
plainly justifies intellectual property entirely in terms
of public good.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tinman digest, volume 2451736 (Tholen)
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 12:56:13 -0400
In article <%LRe5.149$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > In article <XB8e5.62$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> > In article <euWd5.132$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> In article
> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> tholenbot <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > In article <lWvd5.50$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Slava Pestov"
> >> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> In article
> >> >> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (tinman) wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Another unsubstantiated claim.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Check the archive, Slava.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> The burden of archive checking is yours, tinman. You made the
> >> >> >> unsubstantiated claim.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How ironic, coming from someone who makes unsubstantiated claims
> >> >> > without
> >> >> > checking archives.
> >> >>
> >> >> How ironic you allege that my claims are 'unsubstantiated' when you
> >> >> have just made one yourself.
> >> >
> >> > Illogical.
> >>
> >> Balderdash.
> >
> > Typical pontification.
>
> How ironic.
>
> >
> >> > I have not made one of your claims.
> >>
> >> Correct, but irrelevant, given that I never claimed you did.
> >
> > Incorrect, Slava.
>
> Prove it, if you think you can. Remember to use the scientific method.
>
> >
> >> > Still having reading comprehension problems, Slava?
> >>
> >> See what I mean?
> >
> > Illogical.
>
> On the contrary, you simply failed to recognize the logic.
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> What alleged "Tholen emissions"?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > The ones that result from digestion,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I see no evidence of "digestion" here.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > More evidence of your reading comprehension problems.
> >> >>
> >> >> Incorrect, given that neither I nor tinman are currently being
> >> >> digested.
> >> >
> >> > See what I mean?
> >>
> >> Yes, but your meaning is incorrect, thus it is irrelevant.
> >
> > See what I mean?
>
> See above.
>
> > Gearing up to lose another argument, Slava?
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who has already lost the argument.
>
> > 0
>
> What alleged "0"?
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >> > now that Tholen's back on CSMA.
> >> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> >> I wonder how Dave Tholen would react to your claims that
> >> >> >> >> >> he's
> >> >> >> >> >> "back on CSMA".
> >> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> > Ask him, I'm sure he'll answer to your satisfaction.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> I'm not here for "satisfaction", tinman.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Then why are you here?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Don't you know?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I see you didn't answer the question.
> >> >>
> >> >> The answer was self-evident, Eric.
> >> >
> >> > On what basis do you make this claim?
> >>
> >> On the basis that the answer was self-evident, Eric.
> >
> > Incorrect.
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who claims I engage in "pontification".
>
> >
> >> >
> >> >> > Gearing up to lose another argument, Slava?
> >> >>
> >> >> Obviously not, Eric.
> >> >
> >> > See what I mean?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Yes, but your meaning is incorrect, thus it is irrelevant.
> >
> > Argument by repetition, Slava?
>
> How ironic, coming from someone who has already employed argument
> by repetition several times in their post.
>
> > Ineffective.
>
> Typical unsubstantiated claim.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.sys.sun.misc,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Star Office to be open sourced
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:54:49 GMT
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Colin R. Day wrote:
> what kind of packages? Debian? But that is a version of Linux.
Packages, as in software packages - a way of distributing software.
> Otherwise, what package manager in UNIX had the features
> of RPM?
I don't all the features of RPM, so I don't know. But from what I
understand, RPM doesn't give you anything that pkgadd and friends don't.
--
Rich Teer
NT tries to do almost everything UNIX does, but fails - miserably.
The use of Windoze cripples the mind; its use should, therefore, be
regarded as a criminal offence. (With apologies to Edsger W. Dijkstra)
Voice: +1 (250) 979-1638
URL: http://www.rite-online.net
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
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: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 16:56:06 GMT
On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 21:49:25 GMT, Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 15 Jul 2000 13:54:37 GMT, Daniel Johnson
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"Aaron Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>[snip]
>> >Are you saying Congress should be the one to decide
>> >whether browsers belong in OSes?
>>
>> No, they should leave it to the experts in the field in
>> question both in and out of industry and perhaps merely
>> enforce it if need be.
>
>I see. So congress should *contract out* OS design to
>'experts', this leaves the obvious question of who gets
>to choose these experts.
...little bodies like ANSI, ISO, the ACM and IEEE
might be a good start.
>
>Don't kid yourself though; You'll need to enforce this, if you
No, don't kid YOURSELF. The industry is already well
established and definitive bodies can already be quite
easily identified.
This is only problematic for those that blindly defend
Microsoft and realize that a more genuine meritocracy
would demonstrate Microsoft to be in the wrong or at
the very least in a very small & self-serving minority.
>really want this kind of government micromanagement to
>actually happen.
>
>[snip]
>> This will of course lead to the likely finding that Microsoft
>> managed to keep considerable dominance for a rather long period
>> of time (by computing standards) despite their flagship product
>> being tremendously incomplete and the inevitable suspicions that
>> arise from such a situation.
>
>Odd complaint this. I thought the DoJ's complaint was that
>Microsoft's products were *too complete*, not that they were
>'tremendously incomplete'.
I'm talking about the entirety of WinDOS, not just
that part you are only capable of remembering out of
convenience.
>
>What do you think should be in Windows that isn't?
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
