Linux-Advocacy Digest #512, Volume #28 Sun, 20 Aug 00 06:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Eric Bennett)
Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451775 (Marty)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Marty)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Marty)
Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's favorite
conspiracy theorist rides again... ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451775 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (ZnU)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chad Irby)
Re: Switch to NT? ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown (Ed Cogburn)
Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re: (Ed Cogburn)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[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, 20 Aug 2000 02:17:44 -0400
In article <8nnqv2$ecv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Stephen S. Edwards II) wrote:
> It never ceases to amaze me how many people fail
> to realize that if Microsoft went away, so would
> personal computing.
Really? I have no Microsoft products on my personal computer. How
would it "go away" if Microsoft went away? I would be happy if I no
longer received emails with attached Microsoft Word documents that I
can't read.
> >At least one example of another company springs instantly to mind -
> >Apple and the Mac clones.
>
> And it's uncanny how easily they seem to forget
> about Intel and IBM in all of this "monopoly" speak.
Do you know what the legal definition of "monopoly" is?
> >Your constant assertions that I argue from a position of ignorance are
> >amusing me greatly, thinking back to previous discussions about
> >multitasking and file permissions.
>
> Is it just me, or do these guys seem to operate
> out of some sort of universal anti-Microsoft
> handbook?
No more than you guys seem to operate out of a universal pro-Microsoft
handbook. In fact there is a fair amount of diversity on both sides.
BTW, I have been impressed with the large number of generally
pro-Microsoft folks in comp.sys.mac.advocacy who agree that Microsoft
broke the law and deserves punishment.
> Laws of any kind are brought about "because" of stupidity in
> the first place.
Plenty of smart people break the law.
> It's an attempt to provide a low-level means
> for those who have no common sense or ethic to operate in a
> civil society.
Not necessarily, as your own example of legalized discrimination
demonstrates.
> What I find hypocritical is that the "hacker"
> types who propose to be against the government
> for the most part, all of a sudden think that
> Janet Reno is so highly commendable, simply
> because she is going after the one thing that
> they seem to hate the most... Microsoft.
>
> These people are just flakey, and their positions
> are just as fleeting as their arguments are.
If they are like me, they simply distrust large concentrations of power,
which means sometimes they trust business over government but sometimes
government over business, if the business is powerful enough.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451775
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 06:18:35 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> 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.
"Typical pontification."
- Dave Tholen
> It is interesting to note, however, that you obviously do care,
> considering your continued responses.
Typical illogic. I made no response to the material you presented which I
previously declared that I didn't care about.
> >>>> 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?
"Obviously not."
- Dave Tholen.
> The evidence is in the next excerpt.
"Incorrect."
- Dave Tholen.
> >> given the proof for your illogic contained in the digest.
>
> > "That's not even grammatical."
> > - Dave Tholen
>
> Yet another inappropriate quotation.
"Yet another example of your pontification."
- Dave Tholen
> It is interesting to note, however, that you obviously do care,
> considering your continued responses.
Typical illogic. I made no response to the material you presented which I
previously declared that I didn't care about.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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, 20 Aug 2000 06:20:34 GMT
Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Chris Wenham
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >>>>> "Joe" == Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > The fallacy in this logic is that it assumes there are only three
> > players. What if Mac and Linux had been eating into the share of
> > OS/2, Be, Aix, HP/UX and other operating systems?
> >
> > We need to know the numbers before we can speculate on who's loosing
> > to what.
>
> Absolutely.
>
> But OS/2 has next to zero desktop market share in the past 2 years.
> Ditto HP/UX, AIX, and BeOS.
>
> Mac OS, Windows (all flavors) and Linux are the only ones with
> significant desktop market share. With Mac OS and Linux growing
> significantly in the past 2 years, Windows must be falling.
>
> Where are all the "Windows is dying" threads?
What is the "desktop market share" of Linux and how do you consider it
"significant"?
------------------------------
From: Marty <[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, 20 Aug 2000 06:25:06 GMT
Christopher Smith wrote:
>
> You can develop such a package if you desire, but don't "forget" some of the
> relevant facts:
> DRDOS:
> * A non fatal warning message
> * Only seen in a beta
> * DRDOS was *not* 100% compatible
This has been countered with a set of original DRDOS and Win3.1 disks by Karel
Jansens. He reports that a full, retail, non-OEM version of Win3.1 reports a
fatal error message and exits when run under his full retail version of
DRDOS. Your "facts" need to be re-checked.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anti-Linux/Pro-Microsoft Propaganda Campaign In Usenet (was: COMNA's
favorite conspiracy theorist rides again...
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 16:48:24 +1000
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8nmmh1$r4f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> >"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8nmkhh$qmc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8nmcnj$hhu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:8nlu21$gud$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> In article <8nk4id$s5e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> >"Mark S. Bilk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >> >news:8nk3t3$e03$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >>
> >> >> >> The point is that Funkenbusch has devoted a lot of energy
> >> >> >> in the last six months to justifying and excusing Microsoft's
> >> >> >> DR-DOS-killer message, and some of its other deceptive and
> >> >> >> coercive acts.
> >> >>
> >> >> >There wasn't a "killer message". There was a *non-fatal error
> >message*
> >> >in
> >> >> >the _beta_ displayed when non-MS versions of DOS were being run.
> >> >>
> >> >> That error message is colloquially known as the
> >> >> "DR-DOS Killer" because it was designed to kill
> >> >> *sales* of DR-DOS.
> >> >
> >> >Yeah, I can see how a message in a beta only a minority of customers
> >would
> >> >have access to would have an enormous impact on sales.
> >>
> >> The existence of the message was reported widely in the
> >> popular computer press, as Microsoft knew it would be.
> >
> >Then blame the press for inaccurate reporting.
> >
> >> >DRDOS had enough incompatibilities on its own.
> >>
> >> None that prevented it from running Windows.
> >
> >Hindsight is always 20/20.
> >It could have, which was the point - it is not Microsoft's responsibility
to
> >test or fix other people's software. Plus, given those problems it
already
> >did have and Windows' intimate manipulations of DOS a _warning_ about
non-MS
> >DOSes was hardly surprising.
> >
> >
> >
>
> I was a DRDOS user and was told by my own IS department at the time that
> I would 'have to' use MSDOS since DRDOS was not 'compatible with windows'.
> I recall that the guy had a slightly smug smile at the time - he'd never
> really approved of my DRDOS massively outperforming his MSDOS.
Then blame your stupid IS department. I was a DRDOS user as well, and it
worked fine given a couple of bugfixes.
> DRDOS disappeared from my office over the following couple of months, I
> recall nobody actually questioned the wisdom of the IS guys (me included)
>
> I'm still very p*ssed off about it. I don't like being stung by anyone,
> particularly is such an underhand way, and certainly haven't trusted
> microsoft in any way since at all. Nothing Microsoft have done since
> that appalling act has served to improve its credibility in my eyes. I
> find the beer adverts on television more convincing than Microsoft.
For your dumb IS department ?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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, 20 Aug 2000 16:51:24 +1000
"Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
> > You can develop such a package if you desire, but don't "forget" some of
the
> > relevant facts:
> > DRDOS:
> > * A non fatal warning message
> > * Only seen in a beta
> > * DRDOS was *not* 100% compatible
>
> This has been countered with a set of original DRDOS and Win3.1 disks by
Karel
> Jansens. He reports that a full, retail, non-OEM version of Win3.1
reports a
> fatal error message and exits when run under his full retail version of
> DRDOS.
Interesting how Karel Jansens is the only person known to have this
problem.... I mean, seriously, if a retail version of Windows 3.1 didn't
run under a retail version of DRDOS, it'd be _everywhere_.
>Your "facts" need to be re-checked.
My "facts" are based on personal experience as an ex-DRDOS user, that DRDOS
ran Windows fine.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 07:06:01 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Personally, I think there was a time when there was some very heavy
> UFO visiting to our planet. The ancient religious texts are just full
> of descriptions which, if you take the authors at their word, correlate
> very well with alien visitations.
>
> Could the "Book of the Dead" and the Old Testament both by ancient
> versions of the Post-WW2 "Cargo Cults" in the Pacific?
What about Stargate SG-1? Seems plausible to me.
Simon
------------------------------
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 07:14:25 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.
> "Typical pontification."
> - Dave Tholen
Yet another inappropriate quotation.
>> It is interesting to note, however, that you obviously do care,
>> considering your continued responses.
> Typical illogic.
Typical pontification.
> I made no response to the material you presented which I
> previously declared that I didn't care about.
On the contrary, you did make a response, Marty, one consisting of an
inappropriate quotation.
>>>>>> 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?
> "Obviously not."
> - Dave Tholen.
Yet another inappropriate quotation.
>> The evidence is in the next excerpt.
> "Incorrect."
> - Dave Tholen.
Yet another inappropriate quotation.
>>>> given the proof for your illogic contained in the digest.
>>> "That's not even grammatical."
>>> - Dave Tholen
>> Yet another inappropriate quotation.
> "Yet another example of your pontification."
> - Dave Tholen
Yet another inappropriate quotation.
>> It is interesting to note, however, that you obviously do care,
>> considering your continued responses.
> Typical illogic.
Typical pontification.
> I made no response to the material you presented which I
> previously declared that I didn't care about.
On the contrary, you did make a response, Marty, one consisting of an
inappropriate quotation.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 07:55:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <399f0303$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >If you believed in free markets, you wouldn't be posting drivel along
> > >the
> > >lines that companies shouldn't be allowed to "profiteer" (to use your
> > >meaningless word).
> >
> > The US Congress has used the word too. But I suppose you think the
> > people's
> > representatives are meaningless too. Eh?
>
> Where has the U.S. Congress stated that companies shouldn't be allowed
> to protect their own intellectual property and should face civil
> injunctions for charging too much (both of these are positions you've
> taken).
Actually, it is quite within the power of the courts of confiscate
private property (intellectual or otherwise) and place it in the public
domain if such an action should be essential to the public interest or
to national security.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: Chad Irby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 07:50:47 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Marty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Christopher Smith wrote:
> > >
> > > You can develop such a package if you desire, but don't "forget"
> > > some of the relevant facts: DRDOS: * A non fatal warning message
> > > * Only seen in a beta * DRDOS was *not* 100% compatible
> >
> > This has been countered with a set of original DRDOS and Win3.1
> > disks by Karel Jansens. He reports that a full, retail, non-OEM
> > version of Win3.1 reports a fatal error message and exits when run
> > under his full retail version of DRDOS.
>
> Interesting how Karel Jansens is the only person known to have this
> problem.... I mean, seriously, if a retail version of Windows 3.1 didn't
> run under a retail version of DRDOS, it'd be _everywhere_.
It is. It's been public knowledge since the early 90s. The only people
who think other wise are the folks who bought into the Microsoft party
line.
--
Chad Irby \ My greatest fear: that future generations will,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ for some reason, refer to me as an "optimist."
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Switch to NT?
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 10:16:37 +0100
>A database isn't really a document. This is as silly as someone saying "I
>can't read my oracle database on my Macintosh".
>
It may be silly but what do you do if your computer is linux based and
someone sends you a msaccess database file? This is a lot more likely than
someone sending me an oracle database, although linux is more likely to be
able to open the oracle database than the msaccess one (isn't there a trial
version of oracle available for linux as well as the full commercial
version - I seem to remember it mentioned on the box for my old suse 6.1).
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 05:30:05 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Failure of the USS Yorktown
Steve Mading wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : The P-47 Thunderbolt didn't exist at the beginning of the war. > : Maybe
>you're thinking of the P-39? It is considered a superior
> : fighter-bomber and is usually mentioned in the same breath with the
> : P-51. It was an excellent fighter with great manuveurability, and
> : built like a tank, and could carry a big payload. It was much better
> : at ground attack than the P-51, yet the Air Force continued to use
> : the P-51 in a fighter-bomber role and lost significant casualties
> : doing so. P-47s with drop tanks would have been better.
>
> Too many pronouns. I can't tell which planes you mean with the
> various "it"s in the above paragraph.
I don't know what you mean, I never said "its in the above paragraph"?
>
> The P-47, while a good ground-attack fighter, had too much mass
> to dogfight.
The P-47 *did* dogfight a *lot*, at least in the Pacific were it was
used *extensively*. I don't know the details about the European theater
except to say it was there. Yes, the Thunderbolt was a huge plane, but
it also had a *huge* radial engine, which more than made up for the size
of the plane. Yes, the P-51 was more agile, but only by a few
percentage points. I can point you to a wargame, by a commercial
company written by a well-known author who is well regarded for the
research he does for his products (Pacific War, by Gary Grigsby), that
puts the P-47 only one point behind the P-51 in manuverability, 24 to
23. I've also seen a documentary about WW2 planes where the Thunderbolt
is highly regarded for its dogfighting ability, considering its size,
not just its ground attack. There were aces who flew P-47s. The true
value of the P-51 wasn't so much its agility, it was roughly equal to
the British Spitfire in that category (a plane that was already a couple
or three years old when the P-51 finally came out), it was its long
operational range that made a big difference in Europe (escorting B17s
over Germany) and a *huge* difference in the Pacific (escorting B29s
over Japan).
> really agile in the sky. The best combo was P-51's against
> other aircraft, and P-47's against ground units.
Ideally, yes. But when there weren't any P-51s around, the P-47 did
just fine on its own.
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 05:42:39 -0400
From: Ed Cogburn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Is the GDI-in-kernel-mode thing really so bad?... (was Re:
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > No. I have a full understanding of the behavior of the individuals
> > > listed in my .sig, and how to keep their behavior under control
> > >
> > As a Unix Systems Engineer (whatever that is), you should know about
> > something called a <dr evil>"killfile"</dr evil>. Perhaps that's the best
> > way to "keep their behaviour under control", and avoid pissing off most of
> > the readers of this ng.
>
> Clue for the fucking clueless:
>
> Putting someone in a killfile doesn't prevent them from
> spreading lies about me.
Clue for the really fucking clueless:
We don't care. Your sig is a aggravation for a lot of people who are
*not* in your sig. Your making more enemies using it than you would
have to worry about without it. Do the right thing: Kill the .sig.
====== 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
******************************
