Linux-Advocacy Digest #756, Volume #28 Wed, 30 Aug 00 19:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (2:1)
Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within. (2:1)
Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet! (Steve Mading)
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: How low can they go...? (Mike Stephen)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (Gary
Hallock)
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("Jerry O'Quinn")
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 18:13:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Joe Ragosta wrote:
[...]
>Obesity correlates very highly with declining IQ.
You wanna back that one up, dude?
--
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
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Ballard says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:07:35 GMT
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:38:18 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> [...]
>> >> Such problem is that you are frequent victim of elitist authoritarian
>> >> bullshit thinking. In your disdain for "non-contributing" members of
>> >> the community (being part of the community is a contribution in its own
>> >> right, whether you are a coder or not),
>> >
>> >Depends on your definition of contributing.
>>
>> Only if your goal is to restrict the contributions. Being part of a
>> community is a contribution, all by itself, as I've stated. The truth
>> of that statement depends on the definition of 'community', not
>> 'contributing'.
>
>Whatever. If you really believe what you write, I see no way to
>convince you.
There is more to contribute than badly written C++ code.
[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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:11:02 GMT
On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:22:12 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Again, you less the meaning of theft by using to mean something
>> other than actual theft. You are also perpetuating the propaganda
>> of corporate feudalism.
>
>Oh... you're one of those.
People who don't view artifical-scarcity in general very well,
those that agree with the US Constitution in regards to the
legal justification of copyright, those that advocate that
free market and capitalism should benefit society from the
ground up.
>
>Never mind. Enjoy your debate.
>
>Simon
>
>
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:08:07 GMT
I> > > On a 386 or 486 with 4 MB of memory, Win95 is just as fast as Win
3.1
> > is.
> > > Win95 is *MUCH* faster than Win 3.1 if you give it a few more
megs.
> > >
> > > We're talking Windows 95 without anything else. No IE, no FAT32,
> > whatever.
> >
> > I've used win311 on a PII/233m it was blindingly fast. But we're
going
> > in circles here. I guess your experience differs from mine.
>
> Win311 on a PII/233 is *NOT* the same as Win311 on a 4MB 386.
Performance
> does not scale downward, since many factors effect how well something
works
> in less memory.
I know. I've seen win311 on many different machines. On many (especially
low end ones) it is much faster than win95. Installing progman as the
default shell is an improvement for win95 but it's still slower, and
ugly as hell.
> > > Explorer can be configured to put the root directory anywhere.
And
> > you can
> > How do you do that?
> > That said, it works differently from the normal instances of it.
> >
> > > in fact go up higher if you enable the toolbar. You can click the
> > "up"
> > > button or choose with the path combobox.
> >
> > That doesn't work on this computer. I just tried it.
>
> It certainly works here.
Well, on this installation, it beeps and won't go above the Start Menu.
If yours works, then that's nice. What version of win95 do you have?
> > > > That's another inconsistency. it uses a slightly different
instance
> > of
> > > > explorer top edit it, if invoked from there,
> > >
> > > No, it doesn't. It's exactly the same.
> >
> > The explorer opened from start->open and start->setings... have the
root
> > directories in different places. That is not consistent. I don't
care if
> > it is good or bad---it _is_ incosistent.
>
> That's because one is opened in explorer mode, while the other is
opened in
> folder mode. They are both rooted in the same place, they just give
you
> different "views".
They are not both rooted to the desktop, one is rooted to the start
menu. The former is in folderless mode, the latter isn't. How is that
not an inconsistency?
> > > > You cannot just drag an icon to a running app on the taskbar.
You
> > drag
> > >
> > > Apps don't "run" on the taskbar. The taskbar is just a button bar
> > with
> > > process names. It makes no sense to drop icons on buttons.
> >
> > Running apps have buttons on the task bar. It makes sense to drop
> > something on to the icon of a running app. These are avaliable on
the
> > task bar only, so it makes sense to drop things on to icons (or
buttons
> > if you wish) on the task bar.
>
> It makes no sense to drop things on buttons, and task bar buttons are
just
> that, buttons.
The buttons are the icons of running programs, therefore it makes sense
to drop things on them. it certainly makes sense to drop something on to
an icon of a running program, and the buttons are the _only_
representation avaliable.
Besised how does half-dropping something on to a button make any sense
at all?
> > > No, you simply cannot drag files onto buttons, anywhere in Win95.
> >
> > You should be able to drop things on to an icon of a running
program.
> > For most purposes, the buttons in the start bar do not behave like
most
> > buttons (right lcick and DnD ish), so why should you not be able to
drag
> > stuff on to them. OK, so having some buttons that work with DnD is
not
> > very consistent, but they are already unlike most buttons.
>
> You can right click on buttons. You can even double right click
buttons.
> Buttons have no facility to recieve drop messages and never have.
No buttons have the ability to have anything dragged on to them, except
the ones in the start bar. How else could the app be raised if nothing
had any idea that there was an object being dragged floating above a
task bar button?
-Ed
--
BBC Computer 32K
Acorn DFS
Basic
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: 2:1 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: American schools ARE being sabotaged from within.
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:13:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> http://www.freep.com/news/metro/dicker30_20000830.htm
Hi
Welcome to comp.os.linux.advocacy.off-topic
Please do something about the sig, especially for short posts. I know
you've said it's supposed to stop trolls hassling you, but telling
knackos that he is a retard will not help anyone. An besides, what's
wrong with COMMUNISTS?
-Ed
>
> --
> 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.
>
--
BBC Computer 32K
Acorn DFS
Basic
>*MAIL ku.ca.xo.gne@rje98u (backwards, if you want to talk to me)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux programmers dont live on this planet!
Date: 30 Aug 2000 22:10:11 GMT
DES <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I am an average guy who also got fed up with MS and decided to give Linux a
: try. Being an average guy I guessed I would need help so paid Red Hat for
: their 6.2 Delux version which came with telephone help for 30 days. Yes I
: did RTFM and you know what I found!!! A whole new bloody language!!! For
: those of you new to Linux; "Image" now means "copy", "Server" now means
: "driver" etc. At least Mrs Gates little boy tried to make things easy for
: us!
You are correct that the terminology differs some. But you incorrectly
attribute the differences to Linux deviating, when it was Windows that
deviated from the terminology that preceeded it in the UNIX world. The
fact that you learned the Windows terminology first doesn't mean it
was first.
Oh, and Image does not mean "copy". Copy can both be a verb and a noun.
Image is typically only a noun. It means "the thing you got when you
copied."
And server does not mean driver. Server means server, as in it sits
there and waits for network connections (I assume you are talking
about the X server here). The X server waits for programs to connect
to it to make little windows on your screen and draw in them. The
fact that it *also* contains video drivers doesn't change this.
------------------------------
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 18:21:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 28 Aug 2000 12:51:08 GMT, Joe Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >There's an interesting case I read about in the paper today. The
>> >government siezed custody of a 3 year old kid who weighed 120 lb,
>>
>> I believe that was a state government, not the feds. And doctors did
>> say there was a health threat.
>
>Hypothetically, perhaps at sometime in the future.
>
>Her heart was in good condition and there was no immediate health threat.
Why did she weigh 120 lbs? If the parents didn't realize what they were
doing, and they were the ones doing it (and apparently the doctors said
it was), then of *course* the child should be taken from them and cared
for; the parents should be cared for, too, they're obviously disturbed.
This is child abuse, plain and simple, unless you *know* otherwise.
Hell, if I had a three year old that weighed a hundred and twenty pounds
and the doctor's said that it was my fault, I'd *want* the government to
subsume custody. But I wouldn't be in that position, so who am I to
judge?
--
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 18:26:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>The only "working poor" are those who either
>A) refuse to work enough
>B) refuse to do work that pays well.
>C) Spend all of their money on stupid shit like new cars they can't
> afford, dumb-ass gold jewelry, etc.
By Edict of King Aaron Kulkis. You heard him, boys. Get cracking.
--
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] (Mike Stephen)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:24:48 GMT
> > > 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 $500 for the OS/2 SDK, while MS gave away copies of the
> Windows
> > > > SDK. Guess which one was in demand from small developers? Even given
> > > > the existing penetration (into true blue accounts) of OS/2.
> > >
>
Not that I think IBM did anything correctly (other than write
great operating systems), but they did give away SDK's to anyone
wishing to have a copy. When OS/2 was under Microsofts control,
Microsoft charged 2600.00 US Dollars for the SDK. Microsoft
would not supply IBM with a list of developers, so IBM had to ask
all who had a Microsoft supplied SDK to get a free IBM supplied
SDK. Also remember that IBM had to write a compiler due to
Microsoft taking out the OS/2 code in theirs (known as the
Toronto compiler AKA Cset). Microsoft offered a 700 dollar refund
to all who paid 2600 dollars (this applied to all US developers,
up here in Canada we got nothing).
We did however get all the code we could ever hope to use, plus
more from IBM at no charge. There is also a "bestteam"
organisation that gets about 100 CDROMS per annum for free. It
includes all the code IBM writes for all platforms (Except for
mainframe).
Now go ahead and blame IBM for almost everything else, but they
actually did give out code to all who asked for it. They still
will today, if you are interested.
>From the Desk of Mike Stephen
Micro$oft has performed an illegal operation,
and will be shut down.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 19:33:08 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 10:38:18 -0300, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >>
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >> [...]
> >> >> Such problem is that you are frequent victim of elitist authoritarian
> >> >> bullshit thinking. In your disdain for "non-contributing" members of
> >> >> the community (being part of the community is a contribution in its own
> >> >> right, whether you are a coder or not),
> >> >
> >> >Depends on your definition of contributing.
> >>
> >> Only if your goal is to restrict the contributions. Being part of a
> >> community is a contribution, all by itself, as I've stated. The truth
> >> of that statement depends on the definition of 'community', not
> >> 'contributing'.
> >
> >Whatever. If you really believe what you write, I see no way to
> >convince you.
>
> There is more to contribute than badly written C++ code.
Indeed, there is also good C++ code, and all variants of C code,
not to mention documentation, art and bug reports.
And money.
Usenet arguments in c.o.l.a? That's crap. If you believe the guy
dumping an apple core in your sidewalk contributes to your
neighborhood, allow me to disagree.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 18:24:59 -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:
>
> Are you *sure* that a non-celebrity is incapable of asking
> simple questions?
>
Sure, a non-celebrity can ask simple questions. But the results are likely
to be significantly different. Ever hear of the uncertainty principle?
>
> > Don't you think that affects the results?
>
> What...do you think Jay induces stupidity on people he meets?
>
No, but he does induce people to provide stupid answers.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "Jerry O'Quinn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 17:26:51 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 18:24:19 -0500, Jerry O'Quinn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
.
> >..
> >> My biggest problem w/ friends who bring me their fucked up computers is
> >> after I restore windoze to plead with them not to install every piece
of
> >> crap software like IE that comes their way.
> >Can you image what would happen if you forced any distribution of Linux
down
> >their throats...
>
> There would certainly be none of these implosion issues that
> arise from merely wanting to exploit the full library of
> applications available for a particular platform.
Huh?!?
------------------------------
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 22:18:01 GMT
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 00:42:04 GMT, James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
No it isn't.
Microsoft had an unfair advantage by way of copyright.
They controlled an essential facility. That isn't success
by being 'better' but success by natural monopoly.
>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
In the days in which OS/2 still had a chance of succeeding,
I never recall MS devtools being very 'competitive' either.
Besides, it's not the developers that can't shell out $500
that ultimately govern the network effects that cause an OS
competitor to have a difficult time overcoming barriers of
entry into the market.
>the existing penetration (into true blue accounts) of OS/2.
>
>Likewise, Apple's marketshare would have been loads bigger had they gone
>for volume instead of margin. But they didn't. in teh early days (Win
Then why didn't Commodore or Atari clean up?
For any actual characteristic, at any time in the history of WinDOS
there have been competing products that were superior to WinDOS in
one or all characteristics of merit.
>1.x, 2.x) MS didn't dominate anything other than DOS. It was only with
>Windows 3.0 that they leaped forward. And there was a fair bit of time
>for other vendors to respond; they didn't.
Actually, the original consent decree against Microsoft contradicts
this nasty bit of historical revisionism.
Competing OS and system vendors never had to merely compete against
what Microsoft was doing but what the entire collection of 3rd party
vendors associated with Microsoft was doing and the compatibility
issues that kept that entire cabal working for Microsoft.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:19:54 GMT
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 17:49:15 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:n%5r5.346$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
>> 8oh0tu$rb9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > 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.
>>
>> Format the HD, can you reinstall MacOS9 * WITHOUT* first installing MacOS
>8
>> or whatever? Yes you can, there, point proven
>
>No, point not proven. You've just formatted the drive. It still came with
>MacOS. You paid for MacOS. Anything you buy after that is an upgrade price.
No it isn't.
You haven't mentioned word ONE about the licence itself.
--
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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:23:42 GMT
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 17:53:39 GMT, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
>It's sad that so many folks have bought into the Ellison, Case, Jobs media machine so
Don't kid yourself.
I had this attitude long before any twit like you even heard of
Ellison or Case. I even articulated it in this very forum.
>wholeheartedly that it compromises the very fiber of their morals. What was said
>above
>is that it is legal to steal as long as the entity you are stealing from is Microsoft.
>That's just not true. No court nor rational person will agree with you.
I didn't say legal. I said moral.
As far as "legal" goes: READ THE FUCKING LAW YOU MOUTH DROOLING MORON!
--
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: Wed, 30 Aug 2000 22:21:55 GMT
On Wed, 30 Aug 2000 17:47:52 GMT, Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> >> 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.
>
>Prove your point. "Nope.", just doesn't cut the mustard.
What else is there to prove exactly and how would one
go about doing it. I have personal experience in these
matters. However, communicating beyond "no it doesn't"
is hardly feasable.
>
>You can install on a "bare" machine with all current upgrade products. Just insert
>qualifying media when prompted.
>
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
