Linux-Advocacy Digest #24, Volume #28 Thu, 27 Jul 00 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Advocacy and Programmers... (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. (Damien)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? ("1$Worth")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Jay Maynard)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of Lenin's
Useful Idiots denies reality (Perry Pip)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Linux ap't vs. Micorosoft (was: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts (was: If
Micr (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish. ("David Brown")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Advocacy and Programmers...
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 11:00:54 -0300
Arthur Frain escribió:
>
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> > Speaking of python, I just checked out the Qt bindings. Very nice -- like
> > the C++ bindings, only the language is easier to work with ...
>
> PyQt is very easy to use, as is the companion
> PyKDE. Despite the low version number (0.12 is
> what I've been using) there are no bugs that
> I've hit in writing a very large (for Python
> anyway) app. PyKDE also has some improved
> widgets that make things even easier.
Check out Torben's python DCOP stuff in kdenonbeta, and drool ;-)
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Damien)
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 27 Jul 2000 14:01:41 GMT
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:01:09 +0200, in alt.destroy.microsoft
David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
| T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
| >Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft;
| MS is famous for its bloat-ware, but it is by no means alone. Linux is just
| as bad (I am sure there is a lot of useful stuff on a 6-CD distribution, but
| there is a lot of useless stuff as well).
Well gee, you don't install all 6 CD's worth. That'd be silly. The
Linux kernel source tree has gotten larger and larger as more drivers
and features have been added. But due to loadable modules and
conditional compilation, the average compiled kernel has remained
about the same size for a long time and has gotten faster with every
release.
| >>There is one thing above all that demands power from a computer,
| >>and that is games. Much of the advance in PC power has been
| >>driven by games. And that would happen whatever MS had done.
| >Quite true, but you'd have to rate new versions of Windows as #2,
| >at least.
| Only because Linux is not yet as popular. I have a K6-200 with 64 MB ram, 4
| GB hard disk. It was fine for Win95. Before installing Linux, I had to buy
| a new hard disk (I was needing it anyway), but now I am considering
| upgrading the entire system, or buying a new one, because it is too slow
| running KDE or Gnome.
I've run Gnome and enlightenment 16 on a K6-200 with 96MB and a K6-266
with 48MB, and I think it's pretty snappy. If you are not familiar
with Enlightenment, it's a popular window manager with a lot if
eye-candy features. Much more resource intensive then Sawfish, which
is what is shipped with Gnome now-a-days.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:01:55 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> WOW. Multiple responses. Some to the same post. Now I'm torn on how to set a
> troll filter for you -- should you go to the moron folder or the dipshit
> folder (Do you have a preference?) -- I'd just delete you, but between you
> and McCoy and the other trolls here, I figure there is lot of material that
> can be used for character sketches and plot lines when I get around to writing
> a story about the M$ idiots that live in the OS2 COOA.
Oooh! A thinly veiled threat of negative publicity!
Ed writing a book!
"It was a dark and stormy ni^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H"
"It was a steamy and..."
"It was a dank and depressing evening in the murky innards of C.O.O.A
and the Hobgoblin of Redmond was asleep with his forked tail curled
around the barrel of a fast-repeating facist lie-gun. All mimsy were
the borogroves and the^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H"
"The evening was sultry..."
"The lies arrived on the floor like a bag of wet knitting and waited
for the world to acknowledge their presense with an ugly volley of
self-righteous correction, bandwidth wasting diatribes and pointless
invective that would clot the arteries of a once proud newsgroup and
render discussion, once more, only the realm of the loudest
shouters. It would again be a job for UltraEd, the Defender of The
Uni^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H"
> BTW, I don't know what you said below, but I'm sure its rich and stupid with
> some just right material for presenting trolls like you as keepers of a
> psychoses that has to win, and holds grudges until their head steams and the
> eyesballs pop at the sight of a given return address.
Ha hah! You're just sore because you can't spell "asshole" twice in a
ROW!
> Bye-bye troll.
I'm leaving. It's gettin' too SULTRY in here!
Regards,
Billy Crystal
------------------------------
From: "1$Worth" <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net>
Subject: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 15:01:17 +0100
Hi all,
So why is "Ease Of Use" a dirty concept?
Like it or not, many posters to this very NG and some vocal sections of
the GNU-Linux community see "ease of use" as synonymous to a Microsoft
OS design.
One recent example:
"The real key to getting rid of Microsoft is not a GUI, not some ease of
use BS [but to address the M$ rebooting idiom]"
For Linux to be propelled onto the desktop I'd urge posters to drop this
assumption for the good of the community.
IMHO:
"Ease of use" to me means that you can get things done faster and
better. It means "power" to the user that otherwise would not possess
the knowledge to extract that power.
"Ease of use" means that Linux can be accessible to people whom
otherwise would be locked into closed source for-profits-only solutions.
It also means that the MARKET will take Linux as seriously as it does
with a Microsoft or an Apple. It means that even more device makers will
positively want their hardware to work to its fully optimised potential
under Linux. It means that software producers MUST consider their
software portability as the market share justifies investment. It means
the GNU-Linux gets better. Better is good for us all.
Surely the intelligence of any system, whether it is a fly-by-wire
aircraft control system, a video camcorder or a computer system is in
HIDDING the complexity of the tasks that they perform? And surely the
beauty of Linux is to EXPOSE complexities to those of us who enjoy them?
I propose that they are not mutually exclusive.
If you look at the wonderful projects that are around such as Gnome and
Eazel, and then you look at the first stages of graphical configuration
utilities and the installer programs of the latest Linux distributions
then this indicates that ease of use is actually what people want.
Indeed is is what some people *need* in order to use Linux.
Microsoft clearly stole their ideas from Apple and Apple clearly stole
their ideas from Xerox Parc and Xerox PARC created their ideas from some
of the finest scientists of the time. It is not a dirty word, but a goal
to achieve. It is not Microsoft or Apple, it is just good computing.
Linux has served me very well as a reliable server and a programming
platform, but as a desktop platform it just does not measure up to its
peers in terms of ease of use. That's not bad! It just means that Linux
is young.
In summary it would just be refreshing when people would not attack
others who are not comfortable with the way things work in Linux. There
is already too much FUD in the world.
Comments please?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:04:09 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Say, can you tell us how much M$ pays for trolls?
HE DID IT AGAIN, MA!
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 27 Jul 2000 14:04:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:21:15 GMT, Isaac <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So netscape and photoshop are derivative of any plug-in some clown decides
>to write at some time in the future right? I don't think you've thought
>through all of the consequences of your position. It leads to things
>the FSF could never desire.
While I agree with the rest of your post, and especially with your
conclusion that Max doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, I'm not so
sure about your last comment. RMS, after all, has publicly come out against
GPVed plugins to Photoshop and proprietary plugins to the GIMP as being GPV
violations.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:08:14 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Mr. Wenham. You may have thought you were posting a humorous response,
> here. But what you've actually done is certainly libelous, and
> potentially criminal. This is a dishonest post, and I'd prefer if you
> never repeated this type of behavior. I'd prefer it so much, in fact,
> that if you do it again, I will report you to your ISP, and we'll see if
> they agree with my sentiments.
Sure!
They can be reached by sending mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] They
can also be called directly by dialing (516) 221-6664.
The address of my ISP is:
2471 Merrick Road
Bellmore, NY 11710
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 27 Jul 2000 14:02:48 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 11:23:03 -0500,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>Again, see what I said above. I don't intend to bring about armegeddon
>myself, nor do I think humans should. It needs to come from nature, or
>once the "fallout" period is over, people will be just as cocky as they
>are now. Because, after all, humanity caused it, so we are still in
>control. It needs to be natural armegeddon, natural caused anyway.
>(and perhaps we have different definitions of what armegedon means?)
Exactly, it needs to come from Nature, at the right time in the right
way that only Nature can do.
>> ?? How is the space program trying to stop science?
>
>My intention was that people (especially in the government) are fighting
>against the space (and other scientific) programs. Look at the space
>program, and you will see something that could bring about huge
>advances, but that politicians, and many private interest groups are
>saying is a complete waste of time. They are fighting tooth and nail to
>get the space program stopped because it is a *waste of resources*. It
>seems ridiculous to cut off innovation because the cause of that
>innovation doesn't present an immediate and completely measureable
>return, but that seems to be what is happening. And that is what I was
>getting at.
Thanks for the clarification. I tend to agree. In terms of space, one
needs to understand that it took thousands of years from the day some
guy (or maybe a girl) figured out that you could float on log to stay
dry while crossing a river to the age that people were sailing across
oceans. There were many sucesses and failures during that time, but
people did not give up. OTOH, science will not solve our deeper
problems In terms of the prospect of some day possibly colonizing
space, we don't want to simply be promoting ourselves from
"eco-pathic" to "cosmo-pathic". The galaxy doesn't need that shit!!
And I think that may be were some people are coming from. Nonetheless,
one of the strong points (and political justifications) of ISS is that
it is Russians, Europeans, Japanese, and Americans working together.
>Yes, and I focus on the other parts. I'm not saying government needs to
>be removed, I just concentrate elsewhere.
Fair enough. You have to figure out on your own how your time can be
used most efficiently. And me for my time.
>Each needs to find his strong suit and go with
Yes.
>>
>> About all that the religions agree on in regards to spirituality is
>> that we've lost our way. Other than that, they are too busy killing one
>> another over how we are supposed to find our way back.
>
>I suppose I've been lumped in with religion here now?
Not at all. You mentioned spirituality, and I just hilighted one of
humanities biggest obstacles to it: organized religion.
>Absolutely, all things are connected. But, politics and government are
>not my strong suit. I spend a day thinking about politics and start to
>go nuts. I see how insignificant anything I try to do is, and it
>frustrates the hell out of me.
I can relate to that, believe me. It's funny how I got involved in
some things. I was interested in doing some backpacking...i.e. getting
*away* from society. That eventually lead me to a large environmental
group, which had backpacking trips as fundraisers. One thing led to
another and I ended up working to protect some of the areas I hiked
in, including the Escalante Wilderness and the Redwood Forests. We got
the Escalante Wilderness protected as a National Monument. We got only
a fraction the Redwood's that wanted to protect protected. But a
fraction is better than none at all. How much difference I made
personally I can't say. But if nobody did anything neither of the
above would have been protected at all.
>
>Having said that, in ten years I'll probably find myself in political
>office spouting my views on TV (if that happens, I'm sure my wife will
>laugh me out of our home).
>
More the likely, if anything at all, you'll find yourself involved in
something that is personally important to you. Like maybe the schools
your kids go to, or something else in your neighborhood that affects
you immediately and personally.
Perry
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:09:41 GMT
Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> He's right Chris, and for a very good reason: It's very difficult to tell the
> words you wrote under Ed's name apart from something Ed would actually say.
No it isn't. It's extremely obvious.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary?
Date: 27 Jul 2000 14:04:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 21:11:49 -0400,
Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 00:16:43 -0400,
>> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Perry Pip wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> >> Except that the private sector simply isn't willing to make huge up
>> >> >> front investments in new technologies that won't pay off till decades
>> >> >> later. Two good additional examples are the railroads and civillian
>> >> >> aviation, both of which were fisrt invested in heavily by the
>> >> >> Government and later privitized when people realized their was money
>> >> >> to make off of it.
>> >> >
>> >> >Not sure about railroads.
>> >>
>> >> I should have been more specific - the first transcontinental
>> >> railroads. http://www.blm.gov/education/railroads/trans.html It was an
>> >> investment the private sector was unwilling to make, mostly because of
>> >> getting across the Sierras and the Rockies. When it was completed, the
>> >> industry had it's largest boom ever.
>> >>
>> >
>> >But should the government have financed it? Yes, it would not
>> >have been built as soon, but was it worth rushing?
>>
>> For the people at the time, most obviously yes. It opened up the
>> West. It reduced the travel time from the Midwest to California from
>> six months to one and considably improved your chances of getting their
>> alive. In the coming decades, additional railroads connected the
>> resources of the West to the industrial revolution in the East, making
>> life better for people coast to coast.
>
>But if enough people did want to travel to California by rail, then why
>weren't the railroads privately financed,
Because the 16 year research, surveying, design and delopment period
was to long a payback time for the short-term oriented private
financers. Didn't I already explain that elsewhere??
>Remeber Credit Mobilier?
>
This was several years after the Transcontinental Railroad and not
directly connected to it. Furthermore, the fact that people got caught
and politicians careers were destroyed is an attest to the checks and
balances in the system working. I never said everything the Government
does is good. You seem to make the presumption that everything the
Government does is bad. That's as foolish as the reverse presumption
that everything the Government does is good.
Remember the Donner Party??
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism
Subject: Re: Aaron Kulkis -- USELESS Idiot -- And His "Enemies" -was- Another one of
Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: 27 Jul 2000 14:05:11 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 12:58:09 -0400,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Wrong fucking wrong. THE MAJORITY of women do not have brains
No wonder you can't get laid.
------------------------------
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?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:11:38 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> They cater to Microsoft, they pander to their customers /for/ Microsoft.
> >
> > Wrong twist. Go wash your mouth out with soap, then read this:
>
> Yes, yes, I checked the dictionary. If you don't understand it, you've
> misinterpreted it.
No, I understand it. And out of the two of us, who has bothered to
explain why?
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
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?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:18:41 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Say, how much does M$ pay you to be here -- or are you just psychotic and
> looking for someone to listen to your drivel?
Oh I've got it! It's an automatically generated TAGLINE!
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux ap't vs. Micorosoft (was: Re: If Microsoft starts renting apts
(was: If Micr
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:08:21 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Tim Palmer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Tim Palmer escribió:
> >>
> >> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >Tim Palmer wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> LIE-nux Apt's v2.4.0.BETA.0.0.0.1
> >> >>
> >> >> WINDOW
> >> >>
> >> >> The apt comes with no outside walls at all, but it comes with
brick's and mortar,
> >> >> and panes of glass,
> >> >> and a short summery of how to bild with them, so you can built
in as many windo's
> >> >> as you want.
> >> >
> >> >When I installed SuSE 6.4, I not only had a functioning O/S, I
also had
> >> >a couple HUNDRED applications installed from the get-go.
> >> >
> >>
> >> ...like vi and sedd and gcc, things to hack toggether something
that
> >> reseblel's a app.
> >
> >If you counted vi and sed, he probably has several thousands.
Nowadays,
> >apps
> >are more sophisticated things. Say, SQL servers. Suse comes with
about 6
> >of
> >them, or so.
>
> MySQL doesan't count.
Says who?
> >> >Seems to me like Linux is a mansion, and LOSE-DOS is the one
insisting
> >> >that the owner "build a system himself"
> >> >
> >>
> >> ...and grepp and tr and strings...
> >
> >And at least 3 different word processors.
> >
>
> Tex doessn't count ether.
I didn't count it. And why should I? TeX is not a word processor.
BTW: StarOffice, WordPerfect, Applix Words.
> >> >Yes, it was soooooooooo difficult to point-and-click the setup to
> >> >specify
> >> >installation of KDE, GNOME, fvwm, fvwmnf, motif, etc., etc.,
> >> >
> >> >I spent YEARS learning how to do it... NOT!
> >>
> >> Getting it's instaled is one thing. Try using it evry day.
> >
> >Been doing just that exclusively since 1997.
>
> You must have allot of time on you're han's.
I'm not Han's, I'm my own ;-)
Since 1997 I've had between 2.5 and 3.5 years, depending on when you
start counting.
--
Roberto
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.sad-people.microsoft.lovers,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Linux is blamed for users trolling-wish.
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 16:24:58 +0200
Damien wrote in message ...
>On Thu, 27 Jul 2000 13:01:09 +0200, in alt.destroy.microsoft
> David Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>|
>| T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>| >Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>
>| MS is famous for its bloat-ware, but it is by no means alone. Linux is
just
>| as bad (I am sure there is a lot of useful stuff on a 6-CD distribution,
but
>| there is a lot of useless stuff as well).
>
>Well gee, you don't install all 6 CD's worth. That'd be silly. The
>Linux kernel source tree has gotten larger and larger as more drivers
>and features have been added. But due to loadable modules and
>conditional compilation, the average compiled kernel has remained
>about the same size for a long time and has gotten faster with every
>release.
>
Linux certainly gets faster with every release, and that is a big difference
compared to alternative OSes. And the kernel is not too bad for bloat -
there are regular clean-ups of sections when they get out of hand. I
suppose it is X more than anything else that has ended up in a state which
requires such a huge code base.
>
>| >>There is one thing above all that demands power from a computer,
>| >>and that is games. Much of the advance in PC power has been
>| >>driven by games. And that would happen whatever MS had done.
>
>| >Quite true, but you'd have to rate new versions of Windows as #2,
>| >at least.
>
>| Only because Linux is not yet as popular. I have a K6-200 with 64 MB
ram, 4
>| GB hard disk. It was fine for Win95. Before installing Linux, I had to
buy
>| a new hard disk (I was needing it anyway), but now I am considering
>| upgrading the entire system, or buying a new one, because it is too slow
>| running KDE or Gnome.
>
>I've run Gnome and enlightenment 16 on a K6-200 with 96MB and a K6-266
>with 48MB, and I think it's pretty snappy. If you are not familiar
>with Enlightenment, it's a popular window manager with a lot if
>eye-candy features. Much more resource intensive then Sawfish, which
>is what is shipped with Gnome now-a-days.
Is your K6-200 running on an Intel TX chip set, by the way? That chip set
cannot cache more than the first 64 MB memory - performance with more than
64 MB depends greatly on the OS. For example, NT allocates memory from the
bottom up and will make best use of the faster cached memory. Win95
allocates memory from the top down, and will slow down considerably if I add
more RAM. Have you any idea what Linux does?
Did you every try the QNX floppy demo? A single floppy with a full
real-time 32-bit OS, a GUI, a text editor, a file manager, a web browser, a
small web server, and more. Ok, it is limited, but it has about 60% of the
functionality many people need in less than 1% of the disk space required
for Linux or Windoze.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 27 Jul 2000 09:19:55 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 Jul 2000 22:56:26 GMT, Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Se?n ? Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> Microsoft doesn't force you to use IE as your primary Web browser. You
>>> can use it to download Navigator and never use again, if that's what
>>> you want. So what's the problem?
>>
>>Microsoft's repeated claims that you couldn't remove Explorer without
>>irreversibly crippling Windows, for one.
>>
>
>I don't know about "irreversibly", but removing IE would most
>certainly cripple Windows. Lots of applications depend on IE
>components, which for a long time have been documented as part of the
>Windows Platform SDK.
Interesting. What happens if you are running Win95 as distributed
directly (the non-OEM version that does not contain IE
at all) and an application depends on this documented behaviour?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2000 14:25:37 GMT
Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> He's right Chris, and for a very good reason: It's very difficult to tell the
> words you wrote under Ed's name apart from something Ed would actually say.
I've thought about this more and I've decided not to do it again.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: 27 Jul 2000 09:28:38 -0500
In article <8lonik$cr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >Another "actual quote":
>> >
>> >"Microsoft's license agreements have never prohibited OEMs from
>> >pre-installing programs, including Navigator, on their PCs [...]"
>>
>> Yes, note that this is limited to the license agreements. Then
>> it goes on to describe the threats, coersion and other
>> techniques used to control what the OEM's installed - and
>> the retaliation when they did not immediately cooperate.
>>
>> >> And it is also odd that you are able to find this specific information
>> >> and misrepresent it while claiming to know nothing about the
>> >> documented anti-competitive practices that make up the bulk of
>> >> the text.
>> >
>> >I claim not to be able to remember every specific example of every
>specific
>> >claim. The particular sentence I quote above just happens to be one of
>the
>> >ones that sticks in my head, because it directly refutes the most common
>> >claim of "Microsoft stopped OEMs from installing Netscape".
>>
>> Well now you know better, since in fact it says they did, and
>> how they did it - in the section between your quote and mine.
>> They just didn't do it in the license agreement.
>
>The licensing agreements are the only legal binding. As long as OEMs stuck
>to them if Microsoft did anything detrimental then they could sue their
>arses off.
It would be suicide for a business to do anything to anger the
the single source of a product necessary for most of their
sales, especially in light of the threats known to have been
made about giving better prices to competitors or withholding
product arbitrarily. And in spite of this, I believe there
are lawsuits pending in many states waiting for the outcome
of the federal case.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
