Linux-Advocacy Digest #740, Volume #28 Tue, 29 Aug 00 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Joe R.")
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (C Lund)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (C Lund)
Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows (Bob Hauck)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Gary
Hallock)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison) (Gary Hallock)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:25:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>That's nonsense. There are good reasons for not using a full name.
Yea, so? I don't recall ever saying anything about 'full names',
actually.
>Besides, how does anyone know that your name is really "T. Max Devlin"?
It isn't. And it is.
>Perhaps you're not real......
Perhaps none of us are. But post-modernism will get you nowhere, on
purpose.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:26:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said phil hunt in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:02:04 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>Actually, I did have the thought that Phil's suggestion is actually a
>>kind of "patent by convention", in which the limited time of protection
>>provides sufficient opportunity to encourage initial development, but
>>the relatively short duration (in comparison to the lifetime of the
>>potential value of the development) encourages competition.
>
>Good analogy.
Actually, I consider it much more than analogy.
--
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: "Joe R." <[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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:45:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> [...]
> >> >LOL This demonstrates that you have absolutely no clue Max.
> >>
> >> About taxes? I'll admit I don't know much of the details. As with
> >> most
> >> things, I find that understanding the principles is usually enough
> >> until, for some reason, I'm forced to deal with the details.
> >>
> >
> >And this is classic Max.
> >
> >"I really don't understand what I'm talking about, but I've learned a
> >few of the words involved in the discussion so I'll try to pass myself
> >off as an expert."
>
> Were I as ludicrous and immature as you and 'JS/PL', Joe, I'd be
> immediately forwarding a complaint to your ISP, but I have not done so;
> I'm not at all concerned with your actual misrepresentation of my
> statement, or your sentiments concerning my style of free inquiry.
>
> I will, however, forward such a complete and ensure it is followed up on
> if you should ever so falsely and dishonestly indicate you are quoting
> me ever again. I'll point out that there's plenty of material in the
> thousands of posts I've made which you could take out of context to the
> same effect. But you are indicating and stating that you are quoting
> me, and you are not. If you wish to continue posting to Usenet without
> inconvenience, you will never do so again.
>
Ummm, moron?
Where did I threaten you?
JS/PL posted a copy of what he perceived as a threat to your ISP. That's
his prerogative.
If I had posted a threat, you'd be within your rights to do the same.
As it is, I'm merely pointing out what a stupid twit you are.
Oh, and feel free to send that to [EMAIL PROTECTED], if you wish.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:48:15 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:18:30 +0100, Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:09:13 +0100, Robert Moir
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:NFHq5.8041$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >[...]
>> >> > Oh look...the Monopoly defender is attacking closed-market tactics
>> >> > of another vendor.
>> >>
>> >> I'm not attacking anything. There's absolutely nothing wrong with
>Apple
>> >> doing this.
>> >>
>> >> I'm simply stating that you can't compare OS9 at $99 with full version
>> >> Windows since they are not the same type of liscense.
>> >
>> >Good luck Erik! Personally I think you might find herding cats easier
>than
>> >trying to reason with alt.usenet.kooks' unsung poster child here!
>>
>> No, we just recognize bullshit when we see it.
>>
>> The question is not whether or not you are likely to have another
>> copy of FOO. The REAL question is whether or not you can use the
>> media in question on a bare machine.
>>
>> If you can install MacOS9 on a bare machine then it is indeed
>> the equivalent of a full licence of any Microsoft OS.
>
>An upgrade licence is not the same as a "full product" licence however you
>look at it, and whether or not you think the company concerned have got
There have been conflicting claims regarding the particular
sort of licence that a MacOS retail package has.
HOWEVER, the actual usefulness of the media itself is less
disputable.
>their pricing right or wrong. As I've alluded to before, I think that $209
>(the price of Win ME full licence) is a bit too much, but its Microsoft's
>ball and if people don't like it I suggest they don't buy it. I won't.
>
>The upgrade price of Win ME looks to be $109 according to the URL posted
>earlier on this thread, or $59.95 on special offer. While $109 is more than
>the Mac OS9 $99, I'd say the prices were comparable.
>
>> There are few things more annoying than the requirement to
>> sequentially install various versions of a software product
>> due to such 'upgrade licences'.
>
>Yes. That would be why you do not have to do this with Windows upgrade
>products, I'd imagine. You can install on a "bare" machine with an upgrade
>product.
Nope.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: GUI vs Command Line: The useless war
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:44:02 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:50:34 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Missed the original post:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>>
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 09:42:12 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8ogic1$b4d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >
>> >> I think we should try and move all common admin tasks to a web
>> >> interface. Imagine linuxconf running in Nestcape...
>
>Linuxconf already does that.
...as did WebMin before it.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:46:11 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:04:54 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:52:22 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> If you can install MacOS9 on a bare machine then it is indeed
>> >> the equivalent of a full licence of any Microsoft OS.
>> >
>> >Please show me where I can buy a bare machine that will run MacOS9, and
>> >which does not come pre-bundled with a copy of MacOS.
>>
>> It still doesn't matter. Unless you can't install the media
>> on a wiped machine, it is not of the same utility as an M$
>> upgrade media package.
>>
>> It's actually more useful.
>
>But it's still an upgrade to your existing license. Which means that it
It doesn't really matter should you be in a position to need
or want to wipe your machine.
>doesn't cost $99 to buy a brand new copy of MacOS 9 that you can install on
>a Mac that came with no operating system. Heck, part of the OS is still in
>ROM deliberately so that you have to own Apple hardware or it won't work.
Actually, that's not supposed to be the case with MacOS 9. Although
you could just use a ROM image rather than the ROM itself. Some of
us were doing that 10 years ago (Magic Sac, Spectre GCR, etc).
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:49:39 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:21:01 +0100, Robert Moir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:paOq5.282$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>
>> So? Should we feel sorry for them? I'll pay for winblows when they bring
>out
>> a version i actually enjoy using...
>
>Theft is still theft. Would it be ok to steal your car if I didn't like the
>colour?
>
It would be if you were the robber baron that conspired to ensure
that anyone that wanted to drive would have to buy your particular
brand of car.
There is no immorality in unlicenced use of an "essential facility".
That any you cheapen the notion of theft with your usage of the term.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:52:43 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:04:11 GMT, Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:03:12 GMT, Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >
>> >"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:8oe1jv$ddc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> >Also, Win9x's design goal was to run on the same
>> >> hardware
>> >> > that typical Windows 3.x machines were running on in 1995 and be as
>> >> fast, or
>> >> > faster than Windows 3.x. All of which it achieved.
>> >>
>> >> What?! I have never heard anyone claim thet win 95 is as fast as
>win3.x.
>> >> This also goes directly against my personal experience and the
>> >> experience of many people that I know. Try running them on an old 486.
>> >> 95 is a little sluggish. On a fast pentium, win311 flies.
>> >>
>> >Win95 is about the same speed Win3.11 if you have more than 16 megs. If
>you
>> >have less than 16 megs, Win95 is slower than Win3.11. How many Win3.11
>> >computers had more than 16 megs? 16 megs cost over $250, in August 1995.
>>
>> Actually, it was more like $700 for 16M.
>>
>I didn't realize it was that much, I bought 16Megs in 1996 and it was $240.
>Also thats why I said it was OVER $250.
RAM prices dropped like a brick that year.
>
>>
>> Win 3.1 and Win 9x are BOTH painful to use in 4M or 8M. Win95 certainly
>> did NOT run faster than it's predecessor on the hardware in common use
>> when it was released.
>
>If you gave Win95 more than 16 megs it was fine, but with less, it was
>slow. When I went to 24 megs, Win95 almost doubled in speed. Win3.11
When going from 8M to 32M on a 486, my wife was convinced that I
had gone out and bought a CPU upgrade behind her back.
>wasn't bad with 8 megs and a Pentium class cpu, I had a P75 with 8 megs, in
>June 1995.
>BTW I agree with second part but not the first part. Win3.11 wasn't painful
>to use with 8megs.
Yes it was. It swapped like a motherfucker. That reduced it's
effective speed to the speed of disk rather than the speed of
DRAM or of CPU.
Until RAM became cheap enough to support Microsoft bloatedness I
still had thoughts of defecting back to Atari 680x0's...
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:20:55 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > D) Just can't find a job that pays enough.
> Haven't checked the want-ads any time in the last 20 years, have ya...
Not everybody gets to be a brain surgeon, you know.
> > > I've failed many times. Big fucking deal.
> > So how did you get back up?
I repeat: How did you get back up?
> > > Being broke is a momentary condition
> > > Poverty is a way of life.
> > A way of life few if any choose.
> Yes, the dooooooooo choose it. They choose to NOT do what it
> takes to not be a poverty-stricken loser. They choose NOT to
> pay attention in school.
Some make that choise, and I have little pity for them. Others do poorly
in school because their teachers hate them, or because they're afraid to
go to school, and some do well in school and still end up among the
working poor.
> They choose NOT to get work in any number
> of low-skill high-paying jobs (admittedly, the work SUCKS, but,
> that's precisely why the pay is so high).
Or maybe the low-skill high-paying jobs are all taken. Hmm.. I hear all
you need to become a plumber in the US is put up a sign on your door
saying "plumber". Is that true?
> > > Any body who is "in poverty" is there because they CHOOSE TO LIVE
> > > that lifestyle.
> > Bullshit. Pure self-centered bullshit.
> Name ONE adult who is in poverty who would still be there no matter
> what choices and actions they made in their life.
> Almost all of those in poverty are those who CHOSE to not apply
> themselves in school.
All it takes is a teacher who doesn't like you and gives you poor grades
no matter what you do. Anddon't tell me that doesn't happen. And good
grades in school is not a garantee for a wellpaid job later in life.
> > The working poor *do* work full time. That's why they're called "working
> > poor".
> What part of "living beyond one's means" do you not understand?
What part of "underpaid" do you not understand?
> > Get real. The urge to procreate is *the* strongest urge in every single
> > speices on the face of the earth. And you want people to ignore it so they
> > can fit into your little world?
> Hey, the same liberals who complain about the plight of "the poor"
> are the same ones who fought for and won the right to unrestricted
> abortion.
> So...if you can't afford to have a kid...
> sit down, shut up and get an abortion.
Climb down from your ivory tower.
> > > If you do...then do the right thing and put them up for adoption.
> >
> > How is *that* the right thing? That's about the worst thing you can do to
> > a newborn child. Jeez...
> Oh, really.
> Taking the child out of a cockroach- and rat-infested shithole, to
> be raised in the household of a married couple who actually have
> a clue about how to successfully function in life, and, more
> importantly, pay the bills, keep food on the table, and keep the
> house and food-supply free of insects and rodents,.....you say
> that this is the "worst thing you can do to a newborn child"???
>
> How about leaving it in the custody of a drunken crackwhore who
> "forgets" to feed the kid because she's too busy gettin' spacey.
I wasn't talking about drunken crackwhores. I was talking about the
working poor.
> > Many of the working poor have two jobs.
> What part of "living beyond one's means" do you not understand
What part of "underpaid" do you not understand?
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:17:04 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It would be if you were the robber baron that conspired to ensure
> that anyone that wanted to drive would have to buy your particular
> brand of car.
Build your own system then. Even during the days before the consent decree,
I was able to get a machine without Windows.
Simon
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (C Lund)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:23:21 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Which ng are you two posting from anyway? I'm on CSMA. I'm not sure what
> No wonder you write like a hand-wringing pansy.
And what should I say about somebody who writes like a smug,
self-centered, holier-than-thou right-wing extremist?
--
C Lund
http://www.notam.uio.no/~clund/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.text.xml,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Linux, XML, and assalting Windows
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:43:44 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 04:09:06 GMT, paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 02:28:10 GMT, paul snow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Bob Hauck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >> You've got it exactly backwards. Raw storage is just numbered blocks
>> >> on the disk. Filesystems are an abstraction created by the OS.
>>
>> >No, you have it backwards. Where is the OS when your computer is off?
>>
>> In a pile of bits on the hard disk.
>
>So, your OS is in storage. And Obviously that storage can be changed, so
>long as the reasonable set of changes possible are documented.
Sure, certainly. And being able to do this correctly is tantamount to
re-implementing the filesystem layer of your OS.
>All that about how you would have to stop the OS to manage it. Give
>that up too. Surely you can figure out at least one way around that.
>I can think of several, depending on the OS.
Given the agressive caching done by modern operating systems, it is not
a trivial problem to change the filesystem out from under them without
causing inconsistencies between what the operating system's idea of the
filesystem is and what it really is. And if that happens, your system
is toast. This sort of thing can probably be done, but not trivially
and yes the method would depend on the OS. I thought we were trying to
get away from that.
>Suppose the hard disk crashes. I can buy another, and assuming I can
>lay my hands on all my CDs, I can rebuild my machine yet again (losing
>only my unqiue work, if I failed to transfer it too to some external
>storage). And I supply all the answers to all the decision points yet
>one more time.
I've had hard disk crashes and not ever had to reinstall using the
standard installers that make you answer questions. Boot up from
floppy, partition and format the disk, restore from the most recent
backup. Reboot. Done. But then, I don't use Windows.
>Are you really saying no standard form, with a single separate install
>facility for a given computer system can be reasonably define that is
>equivilant to running a bunch of installs off a set of CDs?
I don't think I said it was impossible. I think I said that it was
much more difficult that you seem to think it is. You are describing
abstractions and just ignoring the nitty-gritty implementation details
that make it complicated to actually do. If you think it is worth what
might be years of effort, well, then you are free to start work. If
you come back in six months with a prototype that does a subset of what
you want and it shows promise, then some folks might actually want to
help you. That's how it works.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:59:02 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> Gary Hallock wrote:
> >
> > Mike Marion wrote:
> >
> > > Gary Hallock wrote:
> > >
> > > > It is a funny segment, but I hope you don't take it seriously. It is
> > > > obviously staged.
> > >
> > > I wouldn't say it's staged. Heavily edited to mostly show the moronic
> > > answers, since they get the laughs... but not staged per se.
> >
> > It may not be staged in the sense of the people being given a script. But
>
> Our K-12 classes are being taught be "teachers" who they themselves
> can't pass simple tests of basic knowledge, and you're thinking that
> their (former) pupils need a script to look stupid???
>
> > the people know what the segment is about and know that they are expected to
> > give a dumb answer. They also know that dumb anwsers will likely give them
> > their 15 minutes (or in this case, a few seconds) or fame.
>
> Try this: Go out to a coffee shop some time, strike up conversations
> with people, and ask some simple questions like "who was president
> during
> the Civil War?" and see what kind of answers you get.
>
I have no doubt that there are people who lack basic knowledge and who couldn't
answer who was president during the Civil War. However, anyone who thinks that
Jay Leno asking people questions on the street provides useful data is as dumb or
dumber.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 23:02:05 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 15:17:04 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It would be if you were the robber baron that conspired to ensure
>> that anyone that wanted to drive would have to buy your particular
>> brand of car.
>
>Build your own system then. Even during the days before the consent decree,
That is pure bullshit.
>I was able to get a machine without Windows.
...and run what on it?
One was lucky to find ANY OS/2 software on sale anywhere. One
simply didn't find GEM software anywhere, nor any for Geos.
You would be lucky to find copies of Unix OS distributions of
any kind to buy, nevermind actual applications.
Plus, "building your own national phone system" is meaningless
if there are other 'essential facilities' that also have to be
dealt with.
As I said before, you cheapen the term theft quite gravely.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:07:32 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows stability(Memory Comparison)
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> You've never heard of virtual memory?
Yes, have you? I can do useful work without thrashing with 32MB of real
memory.
Gary
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
