Linux-Advocacy Digest #507, Volume #28 Sat, 19 Aug 00 22:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linsux as a desktop platform ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: Windows blows (Cihl)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard ("Colin R.
Day")
Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451775 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451777 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come ("Colin R. Day")
Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451777.456a4d^-.000000001 ("Joe Malloy")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:02:07 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Said Colin R. Day in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Cassini (filed the original charges against Galileo), Cardinal Bellarmine
> >(commanded Galileo to appear before him), Pope Urban VIII (did not
> >intervene), and of course, the members of the Inquisition.
>
> All entitled, according to putatively universal ethics, to defend
> themselves. Alas, not according to the laws of physics, and thus
> Roberto's tirade might not be quelled, though it certainly should if
> he's a reasonable man. The point is that there *is* a capability to
> derive universal human ethics, and no pretense of pretending that we are
> deriving an absolute moral canon can make this an untrue statement. If
> peasants, and even prosecutors, had been knowing of all the facts, they
> themselves would have denied that Cassini, Bellarmine, practically the
> entire history of Vatican popes, and all the members and even
> participants in the Inquisition were acting unethically. How many
> seconds do you have to hold down a screaming victim before a rational
> person is supposed to say "uh... I'm not so sure about this..."
>
> The kernel of truth in Roberto's stance, of course, is that we cannot
> deny that any person may well be victim themselves of ignorance;
> ignorance enough to believe whoever gives them whatever cockamamie
> excuse to figure it might be OK.
>
> [...]
> >> Ok, where do you draw the line? Someone who was a guard at the gate, and
> >> only a guard at the gate, is he in or is he out?
> >
> >I wouldn't draw a line, but instead say that the blame diminishes as distance
> >(both in miles and authority) increase. The gate guard has some blame.
> >Rudolf Hoess (the commandant at Auschwitz, not to be confused with Rudolf
> >Hess) and of course Hitler and Himmler also deserve some balme.
>
> You're trying to make ethics a statistical phenomenon,
How am I so making it a statistical phenomena?
> and personally I
> find it offensive. The *actual* circumstance are what responsibility
> resolve upon. The very basis of the concept of 'ethics' is that there
> are no per se rules to govern behavior.
What concept of ethics?
> We are responsible for making
> ethical decisions based on what we know. Unfortunately, lacking that,
> we must recognize each individuals right to make decisions based on what
> they believe. But that's morality. It is not exempt from ethics, of
> course, but it is an inherent right.
>
I would say that while we should let people act freely (as long as they
don't violate the rights of others), this not preclude criticizing their
decisions.
>
> [...]
> >> Another example: for a orthodox jew, the holocaust is in
> >> itself a terrible dilemma, because god is doing something
> >> terrible to his chosen people. This is so painful and
> >> confusing that you end with arguments as the one given by
> >> a rabbi a few days ago, that the holocaus was some sort
> >> of karmatic punishment.
> >
> >As an atheist, I wasn't considering it from that angle.
>
> The "self-evident self-contradiction" of 'the existence of evil' is
> considered by most rational philosophers to be the strongest argument
> against the existence of god. I've never had much truck with it,
> myself, and prefer the lack of empirical support to be evidence enough.
> But that is the angle from which most modern atheistic commentary is
> founded.
I don't think much of the argument from evil, either. I meant that as an
atheist, I am not committed to the view that God protects the innocent.
While having innocent people suffer is bad, I don't have to reconcile
that with an omnibenevolent deity.
>
>
> In other words, what you knew did not include why you knew what you
> knew, considering your "choice" to be an atheist. Do you find that at
> all interesting? I don't mean to sound like I'm baiting you. I would
> honestly like to know the answer, and discuss the issue to know
> additional purpose whatsoever.
I took Mr. Alsina to be saying that Jews had a problem reconciling
the existence of God with the existence of Auschwitz, and that this
irreconcilability was part of the moral complexity of the Holocaust.
I merely pointed out that as an atheist, I had not considered that.
>
>
> [...]
> >> If we say number doesn't matter, then the holocaust is trivial, because
> >> there were hundreds of things like it. If the number matters, then
> >> continuing the war does matter, because it increased the number.
> >
> >But now you are on the moral staus of WWII, which is a different
> >question. Even though the events were causally related, their
> >moral status might be (partly) encapsulable (?).
>
> No, they are one and the same. The holocaust, even if it had occurred
> entirely in secret, would still provide *moral* status to the efforts to
> kill Germans in World War Two. Whether it could, would, or did provided
> *ethical* support 'for' WWII is, however, a separate issue.
>
Hmm.. OK. Given the way Mr. Alsina framed the problem, I was
thinking of Germany's prosecution of the war, not the
Allies' prosecution of the war. And yes, it would provide ethical
support on the part of the Allies to prosecute the war until the
Nazis surrendered.
>
> >> I am personally not decided yet.
> >
> >The ethics of continuing a war are somewhat different, but I
> >would blame the Germans for starting it, and the British and
> >French for not opposing Hitler sooner.
>
> There are no ethics of continuing or starting or engaging in a war.
> There are ethics in individual actions of individual people.
But the starting and continuing of wars are ultimately acts of
individuals.
> Anything
> that encourages, contributes, supports, or perpetuates the suffering of
> other human beings needlessly is unethical. Period. Whether the
> perpetrator knew the ramifications at the time or not, because they had
> an ethical responsibility for determining if it would before they did
> it.
But only if the actor could have known about it.
> And those who would judge them have an ethical responsibility to
> not second-guess other people's moral choices, and not assume that they
> could have known what they didn't.
I wasn't trying to judge individuals as muvh as events.
> But that doesn't support an argument
> from ignorance, which is what Roberto's 'amateur philosophy' post-modern
> ideas require. No insult intended, Roberto. A lot of people go through
> that phase when they find they're interested in reading and
> contemplating these things. I recommend Dr. Paul Kurtz's work; check
> out www.secularhumanism.com .
>
> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> -- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
> of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
> Research assistance gladly accepted. --
>
> -----= 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! =-----
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 20 Aug 2000 00:06:06 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
posts a very long rehash of his theory of why using a library by a work
makes that work a derivative work of that library. I won't repeat it.
This issue has been flogged to death here. TMax has his theory, I
have mine. I feel that mine is better-supported by the copyright
act, the legislative material that explains it, and the court
decisions that interpret it, and have posted that material as
appropriate. Anybody who wants to see it again can look at some
archive for those postings.
But I see no reason to continue this discussion. TMax can believe
whatever he wants. He hasn't said anything that convinces me.
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:08:56 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> >But Linux has an additional advantage as long as all the forks
> >remain open, which is what is important.
>
> And that is entirely and specifically the point of the GPL. A damn fine
> thing, don't you think?
>
Yep.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: Cihl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Windows blows
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 00:10:03 GMT
root wrote:
>
> Windows sucks dick.. every single Microsoft operating system is complete
> garbage.. Anybody stupid enough to bet their business on Microshaft
> products deserves what they get.
>
> -Barry
Um...
Saying so is okay in itself, at least in this newsgroup it is. :)
I would have to give you the advice not to use your root-account to
access the internet. (except if you named your e-mail account 'root'
on purpose)
--
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]
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:13:01 -0400
fred wrote:
>
> Can't we all just get along?
Not as long as people insist on file formats not available
in Linux. It is Microsoft that does not want us to just get
along, unless we all get along with Windows.
Colin Day
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451775
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 00:15:48 GMT
Marty writes:
>>>>>> Here's today's Amodeo digest. Starting around item #6,
>>>>> "Frankly, I don't care."
>>>>> - Dave Tholen
>>>> "You believe the ego of this guy?"
>>>> --Marty Amodeo
>>>>
>>>> "What an ego! He never ceases to astound me with his bloated sense
>>>> of self-worth."
>>>> --Marty Amodeo
>>> "Non sequitur."
>>> - Dave Tholen
>> An inappropriate quotation, Marty, given that your illogic regarding
>> ego is quite sequitur.
> "Incorrect."
> - Dave Tholen.
Yet another inappropriate quotation. It is interesting to note,
however, that you obviously do care, considering your continued
responses.
>>>> Of course you don't care to admit to your illogic, Marty.
>>> "What alleged illogic?"
>>> - Dave Tholen
>> Yet another inappropriate quotation,
> "Evidence, please."
> - Dave Tholen
Having more reading comprehension problems, Marty? The
evidence is in the next excerpt.
>> given the proof for your illogic contained in the digest.
> "That's not even grammatical."
> - Dave Tholen
Yet another inappropriate quotation. It is interesting to note,
however, that you obviously do care, considering your continued
responses.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: 20 Aug 2000 00:29:52 GMT
On Sat, 19 Aug 2000 18:44:58 +0200, Matthias Warkus wrote:
>> Does the fact that I use QT make me a "whore" ? Should I just use GTK like
>> a good little GNU/zealot even if GTK lacks the documentation, and stability
>> that QT offers ?
>
>Lack of documentation -- OK (it's always been enough for me, but
>YMMV). But I'm interested in why you think GTK isn't stable.
At the time I decided to go with Qt, GTK wasn't as mature, especially
since I'm interested primarily in C++. It seems to have gotten somewhat
better, but I'm already happy using QT. I suppose if I was starting
from scratch now, I'd take a serious look at GTK-- ( btw, the available
documentation has improved by a mile over the last two years ). I'm
not the slightest bit interested in using C for GUI programming though.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451777
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 00:37:22 GMT
Here's today's Malloy digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence
for the fact that he likes to "hear" himself, as well as the
evidence for his reading comprehension problem.
163> Tholen tholes:
163>
163> What "illogic," Tholen? Marty made an accurate comment which you,
163> in you usual way, don't understand. What else is new?
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, eh Malloy? I
proved that Marty's comment was not accurate in volume 2451775 of the
Amodeo digest.
164> Here's today's Tholen digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence for the
164> fact that he likes to "hear" himself, as well as the evidence for his
164> reading comprehension problem. To the digest, full of new responses by
164> Tholen worthy of belief!
164>
164> [ain't nuthin' here!]
164>
164> Thanks for reading.
A digest of nothing. Another Malloy original.
165> Tholen tholes again:
165>
165> The sort of presupposition that would have been answered for you if you
165> hadn't thought that breaking his comment apart would "gain" you something,
165> Tholen.
On what basis do you claim to know what I thought, Malloy?
165> Hey, Jeff, it may be time to repost, in all its stultifying, gory detail,
165> one of those Tholen digest of yours!
Doesn't "one of those" call for the plural of "digest", Malloy? And
you teach a language?
166> Tholen tholes:
166>
166> Well if you're not, why are you here, given that you also claim not
166> advocate?
Still having writing problems, Malloy?
166> No matter how proper punctunation may be in your case, Tholen, that doesn't
166> make your claptrap valuable
What alleged claptrap, Malloy?
==========
Malloy likes to hear himself. The evidence:
"I take it Tholen has attempted to digest me, but since no message
to that effect appears on my newserver today, I present an oldie:"
--Joe Malloy
Maybe it's because he has trouble seeing. The evidence:
"Where does he say anything about clergy, Tholen?"
--Joe Malloy
"It follows from your pontificating actions and the discussion
of the clergy..."
--Eric Bennett
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:49:41 -0400
Mike Byrns wrote:
> > >
> > > Simple enough for you?
> >
> > So is Steve Mentzer claiming that Open Source programmers are homeless
> > and starving? Has anyone seen Linus cadging change?
>
> MOST have real jobs that they are discontent with.
>
> It's a movement to try to get rid of something you feel you're done with.
>
> They feel a bowel movement,
>
> when it ends up being a kidney,
>
> that's what you get when you are rotten on the inside from jealousy.
>
> Hey that's almost a poem :-) Ewww.
Do you have some statistics on this?
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Colin R. Day" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 20:52:17 -0400
Tim Cain wrote:
>
> Meanwhile back at the ranch, I'm a bit confused. How is anybody
> supposed to earn a living from Linux/apps? One of the strong
> motivators that I see quote re: use of Linux/Linux apps are
> that they are free. Who is paying the piper?
>
Transmeta pays Linus, RedHat pays Stephen Tweedie and Alan Cox,
Don't know about the others.
Colin Day
------------------------------
From: "Joe Malloy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451777.456a4d^-.000000001
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 00:54:46 GMT
Here's today's Tholen digest. Notice how he's ignored the evidence for the
fact that he likes to "hear" himself, as well as the evidence for his
reading comprehension problem. Ah, well, what can you expect from a Tholen,
eh? The digest improper --
{No, he hasn't said anything of value here yet!] (By the way, Tholen,
here's some extras for you: ))(({{}}[[]---- - insert them where the sun
don't....)
Thanks for reading!
--
"USB, idiot, stands for Universal Serial Bus. There is no power on the
output socket of any USB port I have ever seen" - Bob Germer
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 21:14:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>If you believed in free markets, you wouldn't be posting drivel along
>the lines that companies shouldn't be allowed to "profiteer" (to use
>your meaningless word).
Its not meaningless, and civil injunction against profiteering is a
necessary part of a free market system. Whether or not you can say a
company which only protects property with copyright in order to extract
exorbitant profits on treating it like a trade secret is 'profiteering',
I will admit that is debatable. Are you unable, or simply unwilling, to
debate it?
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 21:15:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
><snip>
>
>>If you believed in free markets, you wouldn't be posting drivel along the
>>lines that companies shouldn't be allowed to "profiteer" (to use your
>>meaningless word).
>
>The US Congress has used the word too. But I suppose you think the people's
>representatives are meaningless too. Eh?
Where was that. I doubt it was in the current context, but I'd be
interested in hearing about it anyway.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 21:21:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> >wrote:
>> [...]
>> >Given the drivel you've posted here, you don't have any clue at all what
>> >free market capitalism is.
>>
>> Who put the hair up your ass, Joe? And why is the only contention
>
>I guess I get tired of people advocating that my company shouldn't be
>allowed to exist because we charge more than the bare minimum to survive.
You had a knee jerk reaction to my suggestion that your company should
avoid taking advantage of your customers by artificially restricting
access to the benefits of your product. I never said anything at all
about your company "shouldn't be allowed to exist" or "the bare minimum
to survive". You're acting hysterical.
>> you've provided that I 'haven't a clue', but you haven't ever addressed
>> any of the actual statements I've made? You don't want to "confront"
>
>Sure. Over and over. Read the thread.
Well, see, I've read it. Over and over, as it were. All you've done is
misrepresent my position with straw men and insist I'm posting "drivel".
You haven't actually addressed any of my arguments or presented any
actual facts to refute them.
>> the fact that you are relying on popular wisdom, not true understanding,
>> in your approach to "what free market capitalism is", would be my guess.
>
>No, I'm relying on my own experience which happens to coincide with the
>combined experience of virtually everyone who has ever been successful
>in business.
Like I said. "Popular wisdom". Premised on the assumption that since
you've observed something, the explanations you've been given for it
must be true, you're quite willing to deny fundamental principles
because you refuse to consider them for yourself.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 21:35:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
[...meaningless insults deleted...]
>Let's say the market determines when the price is too high. By that
>definition, it's IMPOSSIBLE to overcharge for a product, so your entire
>two weeks of blathering is meaningless. As long as someone is willing to
>pay what my company asks, there's no profiteering involved.
This is incorrect. You've transposed "someone" (an individual) and 'the
market' (an affect); you can't do that. So long as that "someone" is
entirely free to replace your product with a reasonable alternative,
your price is determined by the market. If your company's profits are
predicated on not being easily replaceable, even when there are an
almost unlimited number of potential replacements (as there almost
always is with software), and you're charging anything but rock-bottom
prices, you're profiteering, because it isn't simple supply, but
*artificially restricted supply* on which your often outrageous profits
depend.
"Rock bottom", of course, is not any kind of quantitative mandate. It
is a test of whether market forces are in affect. Double-checking the
operation of *public* corporations is necessary; second guessing of
business decisions is not the intent.
I never even hinted, BTW, that *your* company was necessarily
profiteering. I don't even know who you work for.
>Now go away and learn a little bit about business before making yourself
>look even more foolish.
Hmmmm. The vehemence of your view despite your lack of a clear position
outside of popular wisdom, which results in ridiculous extremist views
presenting a transcendence of commerce over civilization and society,
merely leads me to believe that you would rather not discuss this
subject. Now go away and come to grips with your social
responsibilities before making yourself look even more dishonest.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sat, 19 Aug 2000 21:37:11 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>It's actually factually in error, too.
>
>During the past year or two, the Mac's market share has been rising.
>Linux' market share has been rising.
>
>What's left? Mostly Microsoft -- whose share must be falling.
Now there's pie-chart market theory at work. Who cares how much anyone
is selling; its their percentage of whatever market we want to measure
that counts.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
