Linux-Advocacy Digest #753, Volume #28 Wed, 30 Aug 00 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (Mike Byrns)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Joe R.")
Re: How low can they go...? (Markus Laun)
Re: How low can they go...? (Markus Laun)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Robert Moir")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How low can they go...? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Steve Mading)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: businesses are psychopaths (Grega Bremec)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 18:05:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > The fact that other vendors couldn't compete with MS isn't their fault.
> > The lack of OS/2 software stems from an early failure by IBM - they
> > charged $500 for the OS/2 SDK, while MS gave away copies of the Windows
> > SDK. Guess which one was in demand from small developers? Even given
> > the existing penetration (into true blue accounts) of OS/2.
>
> What? The Windows SDK of that era used to cost about $400.00 and would only
> work with Microsoft C which cost about $600.00 and if you needed assembly
> language access that was another purchase around $400.00 for MASM.
Proof? No of course not. You ignore the fact that the MS SDK was availble for
media cost. You ignore the fact that several C vendors including Borland not
only could compile very nice Win16 programs but also included the SDK and
assembler. I think you know all these things are true. I'm not suprised that
someone who thinks stealing is legal as long as it hurts Microsoft would also
think baldfaced lying to do the same is moral and ethical.
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 18:11:30 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joe R." wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > javelina wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Jack Troughton wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Sure, I'll keep that in mind; I think it would be fun to
> > > > > play on an IRIX. Do you have any X software I can run?
> > > > > I'd have to re-setup XFree86-OS/2, but for some of that
> > > > > 3d stuff those IRIX's got, it'd be completely worth it (drool).
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I don't do anything particularly exciting on
> > > > Irix, no 3-D modeling, etc. My typical workday on the
> > > > O2 is to launch a techno beat mp3, open up five or six
> > > > xterms, ssh into various Irix, HP, and Solaris servers, and
> > > > try to keep the users happy.
> > > >
> > > > I see printouts on the walls and cubicles around here
> > > > as evidence that somebody is playing with some cool Irix
> > > > 3D tools, but I've never done so myself.
> > > >
> > > > > Actually, my PC is a work of art, too, as well as being
> > > > > a workhorse. Mind you, the art involved is different,
> > > > > but... Built it myself, yadda yadda yadda, and works
> > > > > very well for me. I have a lot of fun with my PC.
> > > >
> > > > I'd like to build a PC someday, but usually when I'm home
> > > > the last thing I want to do is futz around with my computer.
> > >
> > > It only takes about 60-120 minutes TOTAL time.
> > >
> > > break it down into 10-15 minute chunks.
> > >
> > > But the case
> > > Buy a motherboard, cpu, and memory.
> > >
> > > Put all of that in the case.
> > >
> > > Keep buying more components and install as time permits
> > > until the whole computer workds.
> > >
> >
> > That's ridiculous.
> >
> > There's no way it's an hour job.
> >
>
> I was just talking about physical assembly, not purchasing components.
>
That's the problem--the Wintrolls keep bragging about how fast it is to
do something, but they only count a small portion of the total time.
Just like they talk about how cheap PCs are, but then leave out half the
components.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 20:16:28 +0200
From: Markus Laun <[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...?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:qVar5.361$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > <cut>
> >
> > > Wow you must be a real computer geek, we all stand in awe.
> >
> > LOL thx :)
> >
> > > If you were using a Mac or OS/2 in 1991 for personal use, I would not
> > > call them "alternative" I would call them unpopular. Anything made by
> > > IBM was not designed to be "Alternative"
> >
> > Nope, not a mac, nope, no OS/2 neighter, come on, you can take better
> > guesses then that :)
> >
> AmigaDos? DR-Dos? CP/M? MP/M?
acorn?
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 20:21:03 +0200
From: Markus Laun <[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...?
"James A. Robertson" wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > 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?
>
> The fact that other vendors couldn't compete with MS isn't their fault.
> The lack of OS/2 software stems from an early failure by IBM - they
> charged $500 for the OS/2 SDK, while MS gave away copies of the Windows
> SDK. Guess which one was in demand from small developers? Even given
> the existing penetration (into true blue accounts) of OS/2.
i was offered an os2 sdk from microdsoft at app. $2000.-
Hmmmmm....
they promised me that win3.11 and os2 would be 100% compatible!
Hmmmm.....
that Microsoft was commiting themselves 100% to OS/2 and a comnpatible
api
in win 3.11
Hmmmm.....
>
> Likewise, Apple's marketshare would have been loads bigger had they gone
> for volume instead of margin. But they didn't. in teh early days (Win
> 1.x, 2.x) MS didn't dominate anything other than DOS.
> It was only with
> Windows 3.0 that they leaped forward. And there was a fair bit of time
> for other vendors to respond; they didn't.
and i assume that dos being the ibm os, and their being a multi billion
dollar
plug-compatible market with everybody jumping on the band wagon had
absolutly
nothing to do with it??
ever heard of critical mass??
>
> >
>
> --
> James A. Robertson
> Senior Sales Engineer, Cincom
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 14:25:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Courageous in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> >Evidently, you are unaware of the number of high school seniors (who
>> >*just* had a "government" class) who could not identify key phrases
>> >from the US Constitution. Some even believed that Leninist slogans
>> >were actually in the USC.
>>
>> Documentation please.
>
>Do you really require this? An important thing to recall when
>evaluating the human beings around you is that, indeed, half of
>them have I.Q.s under 100. Therefore, it should be no surprise
>at all when things like this happen.
I think you're confusing the median and the mean.
--
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: "Robert Moir" <[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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:32:28 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
> >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.
Sorry, I think you'll find that you can.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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 ...)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 14:23:31 -0400
"Joe R." wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Joe R." wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > javelina wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Jack Troughton wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Sure, I'll keep that in mind; I think it would be fun to
> > > > > > play on an IRIX. Do you have any X software I can run?
> > > > > > I'd have to re-setup XFree86-OS/2, but for some of that
> > > > > > 3d stuff those IRIX's got, it'd be completely worth it (drool).
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry, I don't do anything particularly exciting on
> > > > > Irix, no 3-D modeling, etc. My typical workday on the
> > > > > O2 is to launch a techno beat mp3, open up five or six
> > > > > xterms, ssh into various Irix, HP, and Solaris servers, and
> > > > > try to keep the users happy.
> > > > >
> > > > > I see printouts on the walls and cubicles around here
> > > > > as evidence that somebody is playing with some cool Irix
> > > > > 3D tools, but I've never done so myself.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, my PC is a work of art, too, as well as being
> > > > > > a workhorse. Mind you, the art involved is different,
> > > > > > but... Built it myself, yadda yadda yadda, and works
> > > > > > very well for me. I have a lot of fun with my PC.
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd like to build a PC someday, but usually when I'm home
> > > > > the last thing I want to do is futz around with my computer.
> > > >
> > > > It only takes about 60-120 minutes TOTAL time.
> > > >
> > > > break it down into 10-15 minute chunks.
> > > >
> > > > But the case
> > > > Buy a motherboard, cpu, and memory.
> > > >
> > > > Put all of that in the case.
> > > >
> > > > Keep buying more components and install as time permits
> > > > until the whole computer workds.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That's ridiculous.
> > >
> > > There's no way it's an hour job.
> > >
> >
> > I was just talking about physical assembly, not purchasing components.
> >
>
> That's the problem--the Wintrolls keep bragging about how fast it is to
> do something, but they only count a small portion of the total time.
>
> Just like they talk about how cheap PCs are, but then leave out half the
> components.
He was talking about "futzing around with a computer"
To me, he's talking about assembly, not purchasing.
--
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 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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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 14:41:56 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(Donovan Rebbechi) wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 25 Aug 2000 00:39:59 GMT, Mike Marion wrote:
>>
>> >The current system of welfare is completely useless.. it doesn't help
>> >anyone
>> >do to no incentive to actually go out and get a paying job. And that's
>> >just
>> >_one_ of the screwed up gov't programs that waste our tax money.
>>
>> If you're talking about the US, that is just plain wrong. There is an
>> incentive to go out and get a paying job, namely that they are required
>> to go out and find one.
>
>
>Only in the past couple of years.
>
>That's why there are so many 4th generation welfare families.
How many are (were) there, exactly?
--
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: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 14:48:55 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe Ragosta in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <cofp5.293$v3.4018@uchinews>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[...]
>> I regard many forms of welfare as cheap insurance, frankly. People who
>> become justifiably angry and who in this country can easily get a gun
>> scare the hell out of me.
>
>So you believe in encouraging blackmail.......
LOL. No, we just don't believe in denying reality to justify our
political position. Take out the word "justifiable" (necessary, to
consider it blackmail), and you're still just as dead in the end.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 14:56:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Peter Ammon wrote:
[...]
>> I'm not saying that "everyone pays an equal percentage of what they can
>> afford" is necessarily a just taxation system, but it does seem to be
>> the philosophy behind a progressive tax.
>
>And by that same philosophy, if the guy earning $10,000/year pays
>$1.50/pound for hamburger, then the guy earning $30,000/year should pay
>$4.50/pound (or more) for hamburger.
If taxes were hamburger, yes.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:04:15 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <8ohj23$kf8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-- snip --
> > What part of "understanding" do you not comprehend?
>
> Of course, you snipped out the important part of the message.
No, I focused precisely on that which *I* consider to be important. That
you consider haggling over Max' prioritization of the importance of
detail an "important" issue is completely irrelevant to my point, which
is that your paraphrase of what Max said directly contradicts what he
actually said:
Max: "I find that understanding the principles is usually enough...[I
deal with details only when necessary]"
You, paraphrasing Max: "I really don't understand what I'm talking
about, but....[insert irrelevancies here]"
You deliberately ignored what he said and provided a grossly unfair
(mis)translation of what you ignored.
It's the Dave Tholen types who divert via haggling over minutiae and try
to elevate "details" above "concepts," hence the reference.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:11:47 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> For the record, the part that you trimmed is where Max claimed that he
> didn't need any facts or details.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^
^^^
I defy you to reproduce that part of the post.
Curtis
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:35:55 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> > The fact that other vendors couldn't compete with MS isn't their fault.
>> > The lack of OS/2 software stems from an early failure by IBM - they
>> > charged $500 for the OS/2 SDK, while MS gave away copies of the Windows
>> > SDK. Guess which one was in demand from small developers? Even given
>> > the existing penetration (into true blue accounts) of OS/2.
>>
>> What? The Windows SDK of that era used to cost about $400.00 and would only
>> work with Microsoft C which cost about $600.00 and if you needed assembly
>> language access that was another purchase around $400.00 for MASM.
>
>Proof? No of course not. You ignore the fact that the MS SDK was availble for
>media cost. You ignore the fact that several C vendors including Borland not
>only could compile very nice Win16 programs but also included the SDK and
>assembler. I think you know all these things are true. I'm not suprised that
>someone who thinks stealing is legal as long as it hurts Microsoft would also
>think baldfaced lying to do the same is moral and ethical.
>
Funny how you mixed together about three different people
and accused them all of something only one of them stated
(and accused them of something that they didn't even say
they did). Someone said they would pay for Windows when
they could enjoy using Windows. Do you automatically
assume that means they are using Windows? I don't know
about you, but if I don't like a computer OS enough to
'enjoy' using it, I'm probably not going to use it on my
machines (which explains why I don't use Windows).
I wasn't originally involved in this discussion, but the
person that originally state that they weren't going to
pay for Windows never said that they use it. Don't go
create false statements to attack. There are plenty of
people to attack on usenet based on the idiotic ramblings
that they actually said :-).
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[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
Date: 30 Aug 2000 19:33:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: He was talking about "futzing around with a computer"
: To me, he's talking about assembly, not purchasing.
I read it this way too. Ordering parts is futzing around with
a telephone, or a web browser, not a computer.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 12:46:35 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > The fact that other vendors couldn't compete with MS isn't their
fault.
> > > The lack of OS/2 software stems from an early failure by IBM - they
> > > charged $500 for the OS/2 SDK, while MS gave away copies of the
Windows
> > > SDK. Guess which one was in demand from small developers? Even given
> > > the existing penetration (into true blue accounts) of OS/2.
> >
> > What? The Windows SDK of that era used to cost about $400.00 and would
only
> > work with Microsoft C which cost about $600.00 and if you needed
assembly
> > language access that was another purchase around $400.00 for MASM.
>
> Proof? No of course not. You ignore the fact that the MS SDK was
availble for
> media cost. You ignore the fact that several C vendors including Borland
not
> only could compile very nice Win16 programs but also included the SDK and
> assembler. I think you know all these things are true. I'm not suprised
that
> someone who thinks stealing is legal as long as it hurts Microsoft would
also
> think baldfaced lying to do the same is moral and ethical.
>
Wait a minute, Mike, when and where did I every say that stealing is ever
legal no matter who the victum is? I never supported any theft, software
piaracy or any other form of theft is wrong and I have never said anything
to defend the position.
Starting with Borland C/C++ 3.0 they did support the development Windows
programs without the need for owning Microsoft's Windows SDK. That is a
fact, and I have never claimed otherwise it nor have I ever ignored it since
that is a compiler package that I have used for years. Latter other vendors
of C compiler did the same.
Prior to the release of Borland C/C++ 3.0, mainstream software programming
for Windows required the use of Microsoft C compiler and the sepperate
purchase of the Microsoft Windows SDK. The fact that other compiler vendors
had provided their own version of the SDK along with their standard compiler
packages in of no credit to Microsoft. The Microsoft Windows SDK was
offered at cost to major developers only to keep them from "defecting" to
the competitions compilers. Microsoft then offered the SDK that way to the
member of the Microsoft Developer Network so that they would purchase the
Microsoft C compiler since their SDK was only compatible with their C
compiler. Once determined to stop selling Dos as a sepperate product, they
then started bundling the SDK with their compilers. At that point they
finally caught up with the competition.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Subject: Re: Why doesnt SuSE and RedHat wait until later this autum?
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:48:15 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>What i meant was that to realese products that contains nothing more than
>beta software for the same amount of money isnt going to get Linux to the
>desktop, normal users would shy away from that kind of buggy distros AND
>calling it version 7.0 would, - to a not so hardcore Linux user, appear to
>be a major upgrade to the distro (and it isnt)
>
>It would be more honest to called it a "Developers Release" AND charge much
>less for it!
>
>I havent seen a any major change to Linux for the past 1 1/2 year (kde 1.1,
>glibc2x, kernel 2.2), now -for a movement that supposed to be so dynamic,
>progress appears to be somewhat sluggish!
>
Actually, Linux progress is always kind of 'jerky'
appearing from the outside. If you keep up with
development it seems smooth, but if you only keep up with
'release quality' software, it will appear that there is
nothing for a long period, then there will be a flurry of
activity (as we see KDE, the kernel, GNOME and several
other things nearing a new 'release' version very soon),
then anothe period where it appears to be moving slowly.
In actuallity those slow periods are the most dynamic
periods of development as new software is being created
(or old software is being recoded) and the releases are
the final output of the steady progress made during the
'slow period'.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grega Bremec)
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 20:01:59 GMT
...and Stefaan A Eeckels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> used the keyboard:
<schnupp>
>
>No, the quote is quite correct as it stands. You're supposed
>to chuckle when reading it (Hint: most projects are way over
>time ;-).
>
Ugh... <blush> All apologies. I suppose I do care about deadlines a
bit too much (not that I'm meeting them, though...).
Cheerio,
--
Grega Bremec
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.gbsoft.org/
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
