Linux-Advocacy Digest #115, Volume #28 Sun, 30 Jul 00 18:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Jim Richardson)
Re: Will Linux Dominate the Desktop Future? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: C# is a copy of java
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Robert Moir")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was: Microsoft
Ruling Too Harsh (Loren Petrich)
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark (fungus)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:12:21 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 30 Jul 2000 16:23:19 GMT,
Loren Petrich, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Stuart Dunn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > The robber barons want H1-B visa employees at slave wages...
>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> You sound like a socialist.
>
> A content-free dirty word, it would seem.
And robber barons isn't?
>
>> Employers, by definition, do not enslave
>>their employees.
>
> However, employment contracts can be turned into de facto
>slavery, and employers can threaten to deport H1-B employees who threaten
>to report that their employers have been acting like Lucy pulling the
>football away from Charlie Brown at the last minute.
The H1-B system is evil, and should be abolished, there should be no
restriction on coming here to work.
>
>> The foreigners who are coming over by using H1-B visas
>>are coming here because they have more freedom here than in their home
>>countries.
>
> Or are promised streets paved with gold.
>
>>> Why do you feel it is necessary to lie about H1-B visas?
>> Whoever posted it is either severely misinformed or is an extreme
>>nationalist who engages in class warfare rhetoric.
>
> It's class warfare only when it's against society's legitinate
>rulers, business leaders, right?
They're only legitimate,if you legitimize them.
Despite the rhetoric of the socialists, I fear the govt far more than
I fear big business. Not that there is nothing to fear in big business, but
there is a lot more to fear from the likes of the FBI and other groups
of "jack booted thugs" (If I may borrow a term from a Democratic party
congressman.)
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Will Linux Dominate the Desktop Future?
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 17:17:07 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> Said Keith T. Williams in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> [...]
> >> My language counselor (who is my "sister in-common-law", who is an
> >> English teacher, and just bought a house with my brother, a Science
> >> teacher, and I'm so proud of both of them...) points out that the word
> >> "got" should be eviscerated from the language, and I agree. I got to.
> >
> >*I've* got to.
> >
> >> She's got more educations then me.
>
> Another reason "got" is simply a pain in the ass is the fact that it
> makes a mockery of enunciation and diction in most common usage. While
> it could simply be the practiced tongue-twister involved in a 'v'
> consonant followed by a gutteral/hard 'g' consonant, which isn't a
reminds me of the dolts who say "I been there"
Makes me feel like smacking their ears.
> typical construction in English, AFAIK, I think it may also be just as
> much a case that "I 'have' got to" is no less silly, if slightly more
> grammatically correct. "Got" is a foreign interloper in the phrase, "I
"I have GOT to get one of those!"
> have to". In the vernacular, the phrase "I gots' to" is actually far
> more communicative, if even a greater offense against Keith's
> grammatical senses. The more indicative but even less correct appearing
"I have to" works just as well...
> choice would be "I's gots to". I think this is primarily a derivative
> which seeks to avoid the conflict of an open-mouth 'i' sound immediately
> trying to be compressed down into a hard 'g'. More rigorous lingual
> historians would probably considered it a devolution of "I *has* got to"
> which is 'merely' using the wrong tense of "to have", though. Of
What do you expect from the uneducated????
> course, the addition of the 's' on "got" is probably a similar thing,
> almost as if the tenses of "to get" as "get, got, gots", rather than
> "get, got, getting". Of course, I'm not suggesting that "I have getting
> to" is the equivalent, but this merely highlights the point that
> colloqueal language is always far more communicative than the absolute
> grammer version.
>
> Do you know of any constructs where the present tense (like "have") is
> mixed with a progressive tense (like "getting")? Certainly not in
> standard English, but perhaps in colloqueal expression such an idea
> might convey a useful abstraction, don't you think, Keith?
Hmmmmmm, i try to avoid sounding like an uneducated peasant....
>
> - tmax. Archeologist in search of poems. Stop kicking sand up.
>
> -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 17:18:54 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On 30 Jul 2000 16:28:07 GMT, Loren Petrich wrote:
> >>>The guy who gets hired as the CEO is the guy with the rich parents,
> >>>who can afford to send him to the Harvard business school.
> >
> >>This is just plain dumb. ...
> >
> > Why not defend Communism on the ground that Party bosses had
> >earned their positions???
>
> There's three groups of people involved here:
>
> (1) Communist party bosses. THese guys write the laws of the land.
> They often get terribly upset that their censorship laws don't
> extend beyond their jurisdiction. Not democratically elected,
> and not accountable to anyone. Can't be fired.
>
> (2) The proper analog to the communist party bosses: Western politicians.
> Democratically elected, and under a lot of scrutiny.
>
> (3) CEOs. Hired rather than elected. Accountable to the shareholders, but
> not to the electorate. They don't write laws, but they can lobby just
> like anyone else. Of the three groups, the CEO has the least job
> security. ( at least the politician gets a term )
>
> Anyway, it seems that we have some agreement that the CEOs have in some cases
> earned their positions. I've already raised objections to this theory that
> there is "widespread poverty" and the best you could do to counter is to
> tell me that I was in dire poverty because I didn't own a mansion in the
> countryside.
>
> The funny thing is that the US is not perfect, and there are some valid
> criticisms one could make. But trying to portray it as 19th century
> industrial feudalism does not lend much credibility to your arguments.
>
That's the problem with American liberals (crypto-commies)....they
all live in the land of Charles Dickens, and fail to notice the
real opportunities which abound for EVERYBODY living in the United
States
> --
> Donovan
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 17:22:23 -0400
John Hughes wrote:
>
> "fungus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >
> > John Hughes wrote:
> > >
> > > > Add to this the known fact that Microsoft itself doesn't run
> > > > any of their internal databases (hotmail, msn, etc) on Windows
> > > > and we're left with what? Hot air about some new definition
> > > > of "scalability"....
> > > >
> > >
> > > This isnt a known fact. Can you provide references to your 'facts'.? Or
> are
> > > you a liar.......?
> >
> >
> > John,
> >
> > It's been what, a whole week since the last thread about Microsoft
> > not using Windows for any of their stuff? Have you forgotton already
> > or are you doing this deliberately?
> >
> > Whatever...I certainly don't mind posting some more proof to the
> > Windows advocacy newsgroups, so here we go (again):
> >
> >
>
> Try again.
>
> Fungus :
>
> 'Add to this the known fact that Microsoft itself doesn't run any of their
> internal databases (hotmail, msn, etc) on Windows and we're left with what?
> Hot air about some new definition of "scalability"....'
>
> YOU state that Microsoft doesnt run ANY (please proove this) of their
> INTERNAL DATABASES (and this). You know the difference between a database
> and a web site? Right?
>
> Or you just trying to change the subject?
If Microsoft has such a good platform, then why are the servers
that come under the heaviest usage Unix machines?
How come no Lose2000 machines?
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren's Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
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.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: C# is a copy of java
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 13:18:09 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > All I was saying is that I would consider C to be more of a mid-level
> > > language. (Some of the features of a high level language while
> > > retaining many of the benefits of a low level language).
>
> C, by the standards of its day, was a "high level language."
> Today, and in retrospect, it's more of a portable assembly
> language, IMO.
Do tell, what standards are you making reference tof?
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 22:23:45 +0100
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> > ------------------
> > Not Found
> > The requested URL /nix/ was not found on this server.
> >
> > Apache/1.3.9 Server at msnhomepages.talkcity.com Port 6010
> > ------------------
> >
> > Note the word "Apache".
>
> *CONFIRMED*
Whooop-de-dooooo
Now show me where it is that Microsoft have anything to do with Talk City,
other than Talkcity are partnering MSN for some content stuff.
Talkcity is *NOT* MSN. Talkcity is NOT Microsoft. So please explain to me
what Talkcity's choice of platform has to do with MSN, Microsoft, these
newsgroups or anything except your ability to stick your head up your ass?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 30 Jul 2000 16:26:29 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Leslie Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
>>>>However, I am not aware of
>>>>any case that did not involve the copying of a literal work
>>>>in some way (experts, feel free to correct me...). [...]
>>
>>>George Harrison.
>>
>>As I recall, this case involved copying a specific sequence
>>and the fact that it was a copy had to be established in
>>order to prove the case. If he had never heard the original
>>protected work there would have been no case. In the case
>>of using a library already on the user's machine, there is
>>no such copying or even knowledge of internals of the thing
>>being used.
>
>Ah, the mind of an engineer. No, he didn't copy "a specific sequence",
>he copied intellectual property without copying a literal work. The
>notes weren't the same; they weren't even just transposed. But the song
>was 'identical', and anyone listening to it can tell.
Translations and various transformations are covered and that does
not change the issue from this being derived *and* copied from
another original work. If he had just made a reference that
said 'go get your own copy of this other work' instead of including
a copy of what a jury determined to be a derivative work, he
could not have infringed on a copyright. Code that references
a user's existing library does not copy any part of it.
>In the case of using a library already on the user's machine, the
>binary/source code/program is implemented *together* with the
>library/binary/source.
Yes, when and if the user chooses to use his existing library
in that manner. Note that such use could potentially be
a license infringement, since licenses, unlike copyright
can have any terms both parties agree to that are not illegal.
However, in the case of the GPL, there are no usage restrictions.
>It is one "work", and if it derives code from
>the library, it is derivative of the library. The copying into RAM, I'm
>told, whether literal or merely deterministic, is the purpose of an
>explicit exception written into copyright statute. This would appear to
>indicate that "there is no such copying" going on is debatable.
Yes this copy is allowed as 'fair use' of your original copy
so the only issue is whether you are allowed to have obtained
your copy of the GPL'd library in the first place. Or whether
you are allowed to have the copy of the non-GPL'd code that
may at some time become linked to other libraries.
>>>It is the concept of "work" which is at issue, not the concept of
>>>copying.
>>
>>This is simply not true.
>
> [...]
>
>Which is to say you cannot fathom why or how?
I cannot fathom how a law dealing with explicitly copying material
(even allowing for the translation/transformation concept) can
have anything to do with different original material that is
not such a copy in any of the possible interpretations. There
is no copying involved here, only references to a user's existing
copy which he has been given the right to use any way he
chooses.
Les Mikesell
[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: 30 Jul 2000 16:39:42 -0500
In article <DkFg5.13440$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Daniel Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >I'm asking *who should* make the decisition. Congress? The
>> >courts? An executive agency? Who?
>> >
>> >I understand the "not Microsoft" part already. :D
>>
>> Uh... the market?
>
>The market seems to have decided that it likes bundled
>products and that it likes web browsers as part of the
>software bundled with a computer.
Huh? The market has shown that most people will accept
just about anything shoved down there throat by being
tied to another monopolistic product. Fortunately
not quite everyone accepts it and perhaps we will
eventually get to see what the market would do if
people are given a choice.
>This isn't just limited to Microsoft. This is now commonplace.
No it isn't. There are few companies with monopoly control.
It apparently is commonplace for them to attempt this
sort of bundling though, since there are specific laws
to control it.
>So, apparently we should get out the way and let
>Microsoft put IE in Windows, just like all the other
>OSes on or near the desktop.
Other OSes are putting IE on the desktop? The ones I
know about work perfectly fine if you remove the
browser completely or let a system integrator make
the choice. Microsoft is unlike anyone else in the
business in this regard. And unlike the original
Win95 that required the purchase of the plus pack
to even have a browser.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 30 Jul 2000 21:43:20 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>The H1-B system is evil, and should be abolished, there should be no
>restriction on coming here to work.
So national citizenship ought to become a meaningless concept?
I'd prefer something more honest, such as support for a world
government.
>> It's class warfare only when it's against society's legitinate
>>rulers, business leaders, right?
>They're only legitimate,if you legitimize them.
> Despite the rhetoric of the socialists, I fear the govt far more than
>I fear big business. ...
Which might end up becoming the government.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 30 Jul 2000 21:46:34 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>1. Everybody wants to come here.
So stop whining about what an evil government we have.
>3. They have no such illusions. They just know that living in America
> beats living in any communist country.
But I thought that the US is supposed to be Communist in
everything but in name.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Loren Petrich)
Crossposted-To:
misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian
Subject: Re: Anti-Human Libertarians Oppose Microsoft Antitrust Action (was:
Microsoft Ruling Too Harsh
Date: 30 Jul 2000 21:48:53 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>That's the problem with American liberals (crypto-commies)....they
>all live in the land of Charles Dickens, and fail to notice the
>real opportunities which abound for EVERYBODY living in the United
>States
The last I saw, however, Mr. Kulkis does not have hundreds of
millions of dollars of wealth, and he does not have tends of thousands of
underlings who grovel in fear before him.
--
Loren Petrich Happiness is a fast Macintosh
[EMAIL PROTECTED] And a fast train
My home page: http://www.petrich.com/home.html
------------------------------
From: fungus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 21:50:49 GMT
Robert Moir wrote:
>
> Yeah but as Talk City are a seperate company that MSN merely has a
> partnership with, this merely proves that MSN *do not* insist on people they
> have partnerships with using Microsoft software.
>
Presumably they choose people for their competence and
ability to deliver the best possible service. I'm sure
there were plenty of contenders for the honor of hosting
the MSN homepages.
Such a pity for Microsoft that the best candidates
don't use Microsoft software. The publicity would
have been very useful for them - a genuine showcase
website would have saved them having to pay for all
the embarassment and publicity cover-ups that having
all their major sites running on Unix/Apache causes
them.
Oh, did I mention WebTV...? That runs on Apache as well.
> So far we've proved you are either an idiot or a fudster.
And your qualifications for disagreeing with me are...?
Links which disprove what I'm saying...?
Anything at all other than handwaving and name-calling...?
<sound of crickets chirping>
PS: "proved"?
--
<\___/>
/ O O \
\_____/ FTB.
------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[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?
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 21:57:05 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>I don't know about "irreversibly", but removing IE would most
>>certainly cripple Windows.
>
>This is contrary to many known facts. Perhaps you need to clarify your
>thinking.
>
Perhaps you need to stop thinking so highly of yourself. Even with
all your blowhard posturing and shithead attitude you can't hide the
fact that you know squat about how IE works and how it's used by
Windows and its applications.
>>
>>Lots of applications depend on IE
>>components, which for a long time have been documented as part of the
>>Windows Platform SDK.
>
>This is complete bullshit.
>
Poor Max can't deal with reality.
>
>"Long time" might include "since MS decided
>to cut off their air supply with Win98", but that only underscores the
>point.
>
You have no point. All you have is the desire to seem intelligent by
wrapping mindless Microsoft bashing in layer after layer of
pseudo-intellectual drivel that bores the reader into skipping to the
next paragraph. Anyone bothering to peel away the layers can see that
there's no substance underneath.
>
>Just because something that later MS decided to call 'IE' (and
>which you're willing to 'buy', as it were, hook, line, and sinker,
>though others are more skeptical) is part of the SDK, or if IE itself
>was distributed with the SDK, your contention is false.
>
Look Max, your worthless skepticism is a joke compared to having used
IE in my own projects (lopping man-years off the development times),
and understanding the way it's used by so many other third-party
products. Have you even bothered taking a look at IE's design and the
way it's componentized? Nah, why bother when you find it so
therapeutic to simply dismiss it. You're a phony, Mr. Devlin.
>
>IE was promoted
>and considered by Microsoft to be a separate product until well after
>Win95b was implemented.
>
IE certainly was a separate product - until it was redesigned from the
ground up as a set of reusable components and integrated into the
Windows desktop shell.
>>
>>For that reason alone removing them would
>>cripple Windows, not to mention the fact that the Explorer desktop
>>shell now depends on them as well (in fact, Win98Lite simply replaces
>>Explorer with the old Win95 version that didn't use IE).
>
>I'm not going to bother...
>
That's wise, unless you bother to educate yourself first.
>>
>>But regardless of all that, my point stands; Microsoft does *NOT*
>>force you to use IE as your primary Web browser. You can't uninstall
>>IE (without resorting to things like Win98Lite), but so what? There's
>>lots of things you don't use but you can't uninstall.
>
>There's lots of empty space between your ears. Fill it up with
>something that makes sense; please.
>
My God are you an asshole.
------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2000 18:07:51 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > While this is all well and good, it may explain why Lycos does not do
> > their own websearch. Lycos farms out its web search to AFAIK two
> > companies, one which uses Solaris, the other which uses FreeBSD.
>
> How do you figure that?
>
> I do a search for, say, Linux.
>
> I get many a return on it and all the links reference
> http://click.hotbot.com/director.asp
>
> Last I heard, ASP didn't run on Solaris or FreeBSD (unless they have
> Chilisoft, of course).
>
> Netcraft reports both www.lycos.com and click.hotbot.com are running
> Win2K/IIS5.
>
> I did notice that some links go to dir.lycos.com which reports:
> dir.lycos.com is running Netscape-Enterprise/3.6 SP3 on Compaq Tru64 UNIX
>
> No Solaris or FreeBSD here.
Lycos may have its "web servers" running on what ever, it's "web search"
is handled either by inktomi or Fast, which use Solaris or FreeBSD
respectively. We all know "web serving" is easy, the web search is the
hard part.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
Nepotism proves the foolishness of at least two people.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
