Linux-Advocacy Digest #135, Volume #28 Mon, 31 Jul 00 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Slipping away into time. (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch? (Dimitri Rotow)
Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Micro$oft retests TPC benchmark ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? (Byron A Jeff)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Am I the only one that finds this just a little scary? (Perry Pip)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (mlw)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Slipping away into time.
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:29:41 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Well, It was supposedly Windows which empowered the masses and allowed them
> to use a computer. These were the people with no computer skills to their names.
>
> Another thing, nobody from the Window's camp is going to be sold. I know this.
> Their lazy. They don't want to learn anything new. They just want to sit on
> their
> dead OS and continue pushing the buttons for as long as it lasts.
>
> Microsoft won't last forever. Anybody who believes this is nuts.
>
> And obviously THEY folks shooting at me AGREE with my statements otherwise
> they wouldn't care. If Microsoft truly IS so dominate then the comments of one
> Linux advocate won't matter at all.
>
> It's their own convictions which drive them to say the things they do. Nothing
> more.
> If THEY really believed what they type, they would say nothing! They wouldn't
> have
> to. It would be the truth then. And the comments of one man wouldn't matter.
>
> Pete Goodwin spent several months battling everybody on COLA over the Linux
> vs Windows debates. WHY? Pete will be the FIRST to tell you Windows is
> invincible. That's it just light years ahead of Linux. That Linux will never
> become
> the dominate OS of the future.
>
> Then I read the comments from people like you who are actually somewhat for
> Linux and are reacting to this kind of engagement.
>
> And you ask if comparing Windows users to Chimpanzees is unfair?
>
> Are you reading their mail here NJL?
>
> I mean! If Charlie here is just some hobo hanging around a downtown hotel
> getting ready to take his last pee on your hubcap, they why open fire on his
> comments? Do you think Pete and the others go downtown to debate
> the hobo?
>
> NO.
>
> They debate with me as they have FEAR that Linux is gaining ground.
> They want to STOP the movement in anyway they can think of.
>
> They want to be the commercial force to stop people from trying alternative
> OS's.
>
> If you read their posts, you can see they don't support a sense of right from
> wrong. They are not trying to correct anything here.
>
> They just want to riddle anybody who supports linux over Windows.
> That's all.
>
> If it weren't for Windows, most of these people feel they wouldn't be here.
> That they couldn't operate their own machine if they ran Linux.
>
> They have a tremendous fear of their own shortcomings as OS users.
>
> Charlie
After re-reading your post I have a couple of more comments to add.
First off, people debate you for the same reasons people debate Tim
Palmer: It is important to refute those that post false information to
keep the un-informed from believing the lies.
Second off, I have yet to see Pete Goodwin tell anyone that Windows is
invincible. He, in fact, seems to have some actual serious complaints
against Linux and he states them openly. The fact that he sometimes
comes across as jumping up and down on the same point is because people
like you tell him that he is wrong without any reasonably logical
explanation as to why. Pete has a right to his opinion. As to why I
engage him in conversations? Well, simply put, as I said, he has a
right to his opinions, but he also has to be careful to state his
opinions as opinions. He does for the most part. When he states an
opinion as a fact, I correct him. When he states something that is a
fact, I don't try to refute him, but I may ask for more information. I
do not see a Windows advocate as automatically being a liar. I do not
believe that someone saying something bad about Linux is automatically a
complete moron. Pete seemed frustrated when he first started posting.
I can understand that. I had a few frustrating moments in my first
attempts at using Linux as well. I used a different tactic to deal with
my frustrations, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a right to
complain and/or ask about the problems he has seen. Seeing a complaint
and telling the person making the complaint he is an idiot isn't going
to solve the underlying problem (unless the person is like Tim Palmer,
where the problem obviously is that the person truly is an idiot). The
underlying problem was something they saw that wasn't 'right'. And
while it could be that what wasn't 'right' simply wasn't 'right in their
opinion', the only thing I will suggest to them is that they add 'in
their opinion' to their statement to avoid causing the flamefests that
are all to prevalent here.
Third off, posting lies, crap, insults, and total drivel doesn't help
the Linux cause. It shows you are a zealot, not an advocate. And it
puts egg on the face of those of us that are actually trying to promote
what we consider a good system. You do not need to deride Windows and
its users. You need to promote Linux. That is what advocacy is. I
dislike Windows. I had problems with it. I lost data because of it.
These are all facts based on what happened to me. But I do not spend
most of my time in here (COLA) stating over and over and over again what
crap Windows is and that no-one should ever use it. No, I state what I
do use and the reasons I use it. Maybe you should try the same?
Of course, I am sure that I am wasting my breath here. After all, you
are not trying to be a pro-Linux advocate. You are trying to be an
anti-Windows advocate. Nothing I can do to change that.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dimitri Rotow)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Is there such a thing as a free lunch?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:43:04 GMT
On Sun, 30 Jul 2000 09:46:16 +0800, "Dan Jacobson"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.infosystems.gis, Dimitri Rotow posted controversial opinion #4 etc.
>below, hereby crossposted to relevant groups for truth merit evaluation.
>Thanks.
>
>
Dan
It's rude and tasteless of you to crosspost someone's posting to a
host of other groups. If I wanted my comments to appear in
gnu.misc.discuss, for example, I would have cross-posted them there
myself.
I didn't do so because people involved with GNU and Linux don't need
the obvious explained to them. You may find it "controversial" that
folks have been getting and enjoying things like Linux, GNU and WinAmp
for free for years but it's not hardly "controversial" in the groups
to which you fowarded my little essay. If you think you have
something to say, say it yourself.
Hello to everyone outside of comp.infosystems.gis! Visit our little
newsgroup neck of cyberspace when you are interested in mapping and
geographic information systems.
Cheers,
Dimitri
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,misc.legal,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.libertarian,talk.politics.libertarian,alt.society.liberalism,soc.singles
Subject: Re: one of Lenin's Useful Idiots denies reality
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:45:25 -0400
--
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.
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" escribió:
> >
> > Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" escribió:
> > > >
> > > > Loren Petrich wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > >Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >> And what happens if you die? Should your mother be killed,
> > > > > >> or left to die by her own means?
> > > > > >There's always my brother, and if he dies, my cousins.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, if Mr. Kulkis gets into a car accident far away from his
> > > > > brother, and everybody else starts acting in Kulkis fashion, then the
> > > > > last thing he will ever experience will be people around him snickering
> > > > > good riddance to a total loser and how we must rid the gene pool of those
> > > > > who get into car accidents.
> > > >
> > > > Hey, that's life.
> > >
> > > Fuck no, that ain't a life. Do you live in some sort of Escape from New
> > > York nihilistic fantasy?
> >
> > Dependancy is for the weak and the stupied.
>
> So you rather spill your guts while everyone laughs than depend on them
> helping you.
Is it necessary to whine to your neighbors?
A) yes
B) NO
> What exactly do you gain that way?
What should be gained by whining?
a) Lifelong handouts from the government (i.e. the taxes
confiscated from your neighbors)
b) a little sympathy, followed with some advice for how to
get yourself out of whatever mess you are in
>
> Throwing away your own life for a stupid philosophy is both stupid
> AND weak (at least mentally weak).
>
> > Which are you?
>
> Human 100%, so weaker than many animals, more stupid than many
> people. Now, if I don't mind others depending on me, what does that
> make me, in your opinion?
How long have you been terrorized by the fear of failure?
Did you know...that where there is no "safety net", such fear
inspires people to go on to GREAT achievement.
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
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: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 15:46:47 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > 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
>
> Now that's a compelling argument! Also completely false.
>
> Many corporations use WinNT and now Win2000 for their largest, most
> heaviest tasks.
EVERY Fortune 500 company I have worked at keeps their most
important databases on AS/400's and Unix machines.
>
> Win2K can take the heat too. www.tpc.org
>
> -Chad
--
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] (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: 31 Jul 2000 16:09:01 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
1$Worth <"1$Worth"@costreduction.plseremove.screaming.net> wrote:
-Byron A Jeff wrote:
-[snip]
-> But the Windows/Mac EOU interfaces deny that exact activity. Honestly
-> pointing and clicking is a interface for a child. Adults are perfectly
-> capable of constructing thoughts and abstraction using words. CLI interfaces
-> are typically deemed powerful precisely they allow for the user to completely
-> specify the parameters of the the task to be done.
-
-Thanks for comments...
-
-Adults are perfectly capable, but why should they? Many people do not
-have the time or desire to master our archaic cryptic commands that do
-magic things. That is NOT progress.
They should because often the situation dictates that they must. The commands
are not archaic. That's the fallacy. They're still around because they
perform very effective jobs. Cryptic is an issue I agree. Most Unix commands
have characters removed to limit the amount of typing to issue the command.
However You'll not find a more powerful and expressive interface than
a well designed command line interface.
-
-
-> The problem with such interfaces is that it requires knowledge and expertise
-> in order to utilize it properly. It other words it sucks for a novice.
-
-True. That's where I believe the problem is: making Linux accessible.
Please explain how the current Linux GUI interfaces fail to fit your EOU
model, denying accessibility. KDE and Gnome's file managers are point and
click, drop and drag, visual interfaces that work perfectly fine. What's
wrong with them?
The only failure I see in all of this is the lack of a seamless transitional
interface between the CLI and GUI interfaces. Users a forced between one
and the other without the required middle ground.
-
-> So honestly neither paradigm adequate represents the completely model for all
-> users. The debate falls down once an attempt to shove all users into one
-> camp or the other occurs.
-
-Well we seem to be on the same path but I say again: Why does ease of
-use take away the power from a system?
Because EOU functions precisely because it hide or limits the power and the
complexity of the machine in order to give you EOU. It takes away complexity
which removes power.
- For example I may use Linuxconf
-for some tasks and for others I may just pop into /etc, I still have the
-choice - the power, it's just some things are easier done by GUI (take
-for example GUI programming - I'd rather have a RAD builder than write
-this boring code myself again and again, yet I still have access to the
-source, the complexity if I choose - now that's what I call power!).
You're still missing the point. Both Linuxconf and the RAD system you've
described force conformity to their way of doing things. As another
poster pointed out that once you start using Linuxconf, you cannot affect
changes to the underlying config framework because the next time Linuxconf
runs, it'll wipe all the changes you've made. Does your RAD give you the
ability to make changes to the underlying code or model the RAD generates?
If not then you're constrained to the model/code that the RAD generates and
it becomes a bitch of a time changing the underlying assumptions. That's
the cost tradeoff, simplicity and conformity vs. power and flexibility.
The ideal situation would be a system that allows for standard conforming
templates but accepts non-conforming underlying changes to the infrastructure.
So if you want to do something simple and one off, the GUI interface provides
a nice interface, but it you need something repetitive, complex, unusual,
or non-conforming, then you can affect changes underneath, and have those
changes both be honored and reflected in the other layers of the system.
You need both GUI and CLI type models and a effortless and seamless way
to mix and match as you see fit. But as I stated earlier, the debate always
seems to be how to force a single model to solve all the problems.
BTW I'll take power, complexity, and flexibility over simplicity and conformity
every time.
-
-
-> The advocates in this NG battle so bitterly because most attempts to introduce
-> EOU is generally to the exception of any other model.
-
-Yup, and that's why I feel that it does not have to be that way,
-although we (linux community) should accept some changes to accommodate
-this for the benefit of the majority of people.
What changes. You still haven't really described what the problem is. What
is the EOU issue with a complete, well installed, KDE or Gnome setup?
-
-> Probably the correct model is is a multi-layered, multi-accessible, configurable,
-> high quality defaulted interface. But it's hard to do right. There should
-> be a comfort level for every user from novice to expert. As users progress
-> they should have the ability to change the access mode and options of the
-> interface. These changes should be multi-accessible via GUI, CLI, config
-> files, etc. Well defined defaults should be standardized upon, but each and
-> every one should be configurable. In short a dynamic, transitional interface
-> that suits all users at every phase of their development.
-
-Going to the moon ain't easy - but we did it!
But not until there was a committed mentality that it needed to be done and
that we have to do it. Right now I don't think either camp really believes
that a seamless transitional interface is required. Until that happens, there
is not much likelihood for progress.
-
-
-> -"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 optimized 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.
->
-> Honestly this sounds like vague marketspeak. Could you be more precise?
-
-Sorry, I am ashamed to be speaking "marketspeak" :-(
-What I mean is this:
-while ( ease_of_use > current_linux){
-number_of_users++;
-if ( more_linux_users ){
- number_of_manufacturers_supporting_Linux++;
- software_support++;
- System.out.println("Linux gets better");
-}
-}
OK. That's a completely different story. Let me put it bluntly. Until Linux
can effectively run every application that Windows currently runs, it will not
have the same EOU for the common user. Until Linux can do that and have the
killer app that Windows doesn't have, and cannot easily get, there is no
compelling reason for users to switch. Until the DOJ pries MS Office from the
cold, dead hands or Ballmer and Gates, the premiere computing Office Suite
will not be available for Linux. Until MS is prevented from preloading
Windows on machine, and other OS have the opportunity to compete on a level
playing field, there will be no tidal wave change in the number of Linux
users. Note that none of these issues really have anything to do with EOU.
The Linux community could offer free machines with Linux on it to the average
computer user but would be rejected after responding to the users' questions
about the availability of their essential apps.
Now that we have this established the question becomes should we really
spend time pissing off our core, established constituency, in order to
attract largely uninterested group that yes no compelling reason to switch?
We should do transitional interfaces correctly for the mere reason that it's
the right way to solve the problem. It keeps everyone happy and helps in the
transition of those users who do gravitate to Linux.
-
-
-
-[snip] Truth be told, a reasonably skilled sys admin is smarter than all
-those
-> scripts. But another EOU concept is that systems are simple enough that
-> even Grandma can manage them. Clearly a fallacy.
-
-Yes, but lets make it as easy as possible. Complex systems lend
-themselves to expose complexity because in many cases it is not
-practical to do otherwise. Linux has got a LONG way to go though to hide
-complexities that need not be introduced.
-
-For example, the QNX demo disk managed to identify and use my internal
-modem without any information from me (even windows failed on that one).
-It's all about making our lives easier: after all we would sooner make a
-clever generic script than to do some simple tasks: lets take this
-attitude towards system components and more importantly the experience
-of the interface that the novice user is faced with.
OK. Now what happens when your vaunted intelligent code for whatever reason,
makes the wrong decision? Now what? It happens all the time. Now you have a
user that you've been promising that you'll handle everything completely ass
out. And because you've hidden the complexity of the interface used to make
the decision, no useful information is available. And because of the rigidity
of the canned interface, there's no easy way to circumvent the erroneous
process. Windows is notorious for this exact behavior.
Back to my first point. Novice users should be handling installations where
expertise is required. My second point is that while it's OK to normally
hide complex information and processes, also create transitional interfaces
so that when necessary, someone can look underneath and figure out what's
really going on.
-
-
-[snip]>
-> But KDE, Gnome, and others are lighting the way towards such interfaces. But
-> they all need to beware of the trap of hiding complex interfaces to the point
-> where they are inaccessible to anyone. That's where EOU falls down.
-
-Agreed, but lets have out cake and eat it: my whole point is that I
-honestly don't believe that intelligent ease-of-use within the novice
-users interaction with Linux will take anything away from the hardened
-hacker who would spit at me for even using X.
After all of this I really still don't see what it is that you want that
doesn't already exist. You make it sound as if Linux distributions have
no GUI interfaces, no GUI config tools, no automatic detection and
configuration of any devices. All of these are untrue.
My father is a true novice computer user. I've set up his Linux box with
KDE, Netscape, and WordPerfect. It does everything he wants except for
OCR (which I'm still working on). He doesn't administer his machine, I do.
So what is it that you want to add that'll improve the EOU of his system?
BAJ
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 19:55:52 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:40:45 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 15:47:57 GMT, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >> >If you want a simpler way to use it, try something newer, like,
> >say
> >> >> >KDE 2.0 beta 2.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> IOW: cite an example.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Done, twice.
> >> >>
> >> >> Done never actually.
> >> >
> >> >Actually, done thrice: "If you want a simpler way to use it, try
> >> >something newer, like, say KDE 2.0 beta 2."
> >>
> >> That is not an example.
> >>
> >> For someone obsessed with mathematically precise definitions
> >> you have a very crude notion of proof.
> >
> >Ok, let's try again. You want an example of what, precisely?
>
> Working drag & drop between diverse examples of applications
> that have been built with Xdnd support including some variant
> of KDE, preferably one that is sufficiently well working to
> be included in one of the Linux distributions.
Happy to do so. Get KDE 2.0 beta 2 as I said (or, today, beta 3).
For Xdnd:
Start xmms.
Start konqueror.
Drag a mp3 from konqueror into xmms.
For Motif dnd:
Start konsole.
Start netscape. Drag a URL (green-and-yellow-thingie next to the URL
text).
Drop into konsole.
Happy?
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is "ease of use" a dirty concept?
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:01:48 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 14:43:46 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
> >> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 00:06:20 GMT, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> >> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> > Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> [deletia]
> >> >> put all effort into getting KDE2 out the door. Personally I
> >think
> >> >the right
> >> >> decision was made.
> >> >
> >> >Allow me to add a 3.5 item:
> >> >
> >> >3.5 No desktop or toolkit, except KDE, Qt and JX, had announced
> >>
> >> This is why the 'uberdesktop' concept is so limited.
> >>
> >> Drag and drop is orthogonal to making pretty windows. One
> >> doesn't necessarily need to imbedd the functionality of
> >> one into the other one.
> >
> >This is why I know you have no idea what you are talking about.
>
> WHY?
Because if you knew what you are talking about, you would have
known the reasons I gave (and you deleted), and would know that
those reasons are enough to make what you say impractical.
If you claim to know what you are talking about, you surely can
provide a convenient toolkit-independent implementation of
Xdnd. Go ahead, prove me wrong.
At least a proof of concept?
At least a detailed description of how it would be implemented
and how the app programmer would use it?
> >It's awfully convenient for the programmer, if the DnD support
> >is done through the toolkit.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 20:33:56 GMT
On Mon, 31 Jul 2000 12:32:08 -0500,
John Sanders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Perry Pip wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 16:50:31 -0400,
>> Colin R. Day <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >You mean like Burlington Northern? the private intercontinental RR did?
>> >> >(While following their immediate "selfish" goals I might add.)
>> >>
>> >> Was this with or without considerable government subsidies?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Without.
>> >
>>
>> Originally chartered by the Government in 1864, and given a 10 million
>> acre land grant, it took nearly 30 years to fund and went thru several
>> bankruptcies.
>>
>> Perry
>
> The Burlington Northern was formed in 1979 primarily by the combination
>of the Chicago, Burlington & Quincy and the Great Northern railroads.
>There may have been additional smaller roads included (anyone?).
> If there was a BN of 1864, is definitely not the BN of today (and
>anyway, today it's the BNSF).
>--
The specific railroad we are discussing in this thread is the
transcontinental route from the Midwest to Seattle. This was built by
the Northern Pacific Railroad Company which was chartered in 1864. It
was later merged with Chicago, Burlington & Quincy.
See http://www.bnsf.com/about_bnsf/html/history.html
Perry
------------------------------
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: Mon, 31 Jul 2000 16:40:16 -0400
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > it's "web search" is handled either by inktomi or Fast
>
> How do you know this?
>
> -Chad
Because I worked at FAST and was a technical contact for Lycos.
--
Mohawk Software
Windows 9x, Windows NT, UNIX, Linux. Applications, drivers, support.
Visit http://www.mohawksoft.com
I'm glad we disagree, it gives us a fantastic opportunity to be totally
honest.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
