Linux-Advocacy Digest #804, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 15:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Courageous)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Courageous)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Courageous)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Courageous)
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Courageous)
Re: How low can they go...? (abraxas)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Joe R.")
Re: How low can they go...? (abraxas)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (abraxas)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (abraxas)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (abraxas)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (abraxas)
Re: How low can they go...? (Terry Sikes)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 15:35:47 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >>
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> [...]
> >> >The public perception != your perception.
> >>
> >> I is the public. The public am me.
> >
> >You are either some sort of ego monster, or a massive split
> >personality.
>
> Or...
Or othing?
Or an ellipsis?
Or speechless?
Or lacking words?
Or?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 14:29:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>> [...]
>> >You go back to the point: we are discussing your refusal to use
>> >the correct names to refer to things. All this is a tangent.
>>
>> The point is you have no means of insisting what is the correct names to
>> refer to things unless you can convince me that the ones I use are in
>> any way inaccurate, inconsistent, *and* impractical. Don't bother
>> picking apart "QT/Troll Tech" as inaccurate, inconsistent, or
>> impractical alone; you'd just be begging the question. We say
>> 'Microsoft' when we mean "Windows", we say "Lotus" when we mean "1-2-3".
>> Get a friggen grip.
>
>Who's "we"?
The industry.
>BTW: The full name of windows is "Microsoft windows", and
>the full name of 1-2-3 was "Lotus 1-2-3", so it would be kinda accurate.
As we said when I was a kid, "No shit, Sherlock." Which is to say, "Are
you saying that everybody should use the full and complete name for
everything just so that you can try to troll me on using 'QT' in place
of 'TT'?"
You're not that much of a moron, Roberto. I'm *sure* of it. Why don't
you just give up?
[...]
--
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: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 18:30:20 GMT
> >Other companies have used (in the past, but even to
> >some extent now) AMD's small marketshare as a per-se justification
> >for not buying their products.
>
> Are you attempting to indict Intel, or AMD? Are you saying that Intel
> has monopoly power?
I'm not particularly indicting Intel, but rather pointing out
that if it's indeed the case that their lack of market share
is used by consumers to not adopt their technology, you can't
characterize them as a dishonest company for desiring specifically
to enlarge their market share.
C//
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 15:38:00 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >>
> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >> [...]
> >> >You go back to the point: we are discussing your refusal to use
> >> >the correct names to refer to things. All this is a tangent.
> >>
> >> The point is you have no means of insisting what is the correct names to
> >> refer to things unless you can convince me that the ones I use are in
> >> any way inaccurate, inconsistent, *and* impractical. Don't bother
> >> picking apart "QT/Troll Tech" as inaccurate, inconsistent, or
> >> impractical alone; you'd just be begging the question. We say
> >> 'Microsoft' when we mean "Windows", we say "Lotus" when we mean "1-2-3".
> >> Get a friggen grip.
> >
> >Who's "we"?
>
> The industry.
You are part of what industry, exactly?
> >BTW: The full name of windows is "Microsoft windows", and
> >the full name of 1-2-3 was "Lotus 1-2-3", so it would be kinda accurate.
>
> As we said when I was a kid, "No shit, Sherlock." Which is to say, "Are
> you saying that everybody should use the full and complete name for
> everything just so that you can try to troll me on using 'QT' in place
> of 'TT'?"
No, I am saying that using "lotus" when referring to "lotus 1-2-3"
is sometimes right, if it's not too ambiguous in the context.
However, calling Qt TT is not appropiate, just as calling
QT apple is not appropiate.
> You're not that much of a moron, Roberto. I'm *sure* of it. Why don't
> you just give up?
Well, at least now I know why YOU don't give up.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 18:31:36 GMT
> >"Willful acquisition" means "intentional acquisition". IOW,
> >they have to *mean* to monopolize.
>
> Yes, we know. And for the same reason, Judge Jackson always uses the
> term "anti-competitive monopolization"; because there is no other way to
> monopolize. This is basic market theory. Don't they teach this stuff
> in school?
They did in my Management Science courses...
C//
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 18:36:43 GMT
> Eventually, you may be able to understand what I'm saying.
I understand what you are saying quite clearly. A large part
of your motivation is that you're enjoy the cognitive
dissonance that you spin up over simply communicating
effectively.
C//
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 18:37:40 GMT
> > Interestingly, however, I've noticed that in the last 20 or so messages
> > that I've read, it appears to be the one who stoops to insults and
> > epithets is YOU.
>
> Everyone, even stupid fools like you , has a right to moronic opinions and
> the right to express them. Your nonsense gives intelligent folks the
> electronic equivalent of a comic book.
Confusing me with T Max, Bob?
C//
------------------------------
From: Courageous <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 18:38:50 GMT
> If you cannot understand why the world is the way it is, think harder.
> If you cannot understand what someone else is saying or why they are
> saying it, think harder.
I think I understand you well enough at this point.
C//
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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: 1 Sep 2000 18:43:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> Ever heard of POSIX, sweetheart?
>
> Yes, NT supports it, sugarplum.
>
So people keep telling me. I have yet to see one POSIX app running under
NT in any official capacity though, even by govt. organizations which
use NT *because* of the POSIX lib ports.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 18:45:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> david raoul derbes wrote:
>
> > Finally, vouchers. As many of you may have seen, there are now studies
> > from three states indicating that minority students, particularly
> > Hispanic and African-American, do better in private schools. I think
> > vouchers are a great idea, *provided* that *extra* taxes are
> > implemented
> > to pay for them. The bad thing about vouchers is that the money for
> > them, at present, comes out of public school budgets (so far as I
> > know.) Competition is good, but I don't want to hamstring the public
> > schools by stealing money from them.
>
> "stealing"? David, let's take just an example. Assume a school district
> has
> 10,000 students and vouchers take away 2000. Are you saying that
> whatever
> budget this district had is now to continue unchanged? Wouldn't a
> smaller
> student population require, for example, fewer teachers? Your bias as a
> school teacher is showing.
Of course, in the liberal tax and spend world, that's not unreasonable.
After all, welfare rolls have dropped by something like 75% in the past
few years. The total cost has dropped by a much, much smaller percentage.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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: 1 Sep 2000 18:51:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nobody <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>For instance, Direct3D 8 will include volumetric textures, multisample
>>rendering (including T-Buffer support) and several others.
>>
>
> eh? It's been possible to do volumetric textures and multisample
> rendering with OpenGL for years and years.
>
This is a pretty common mistake: Assuming that OpenGL doesnt do things
like this all that well, or even at all.
The fact is that most of the people who are saying these things have only
seen OpenGL function under *windows*. DirectX is written specifically
with windows in mind (since microsoft refused to port it to anything else;
if youve ever seen the solaris 7 version of IE, youll understand easily
that it isnt because it isnt in their best interest, but rather that
they do not know HOW), and subsequently works very, very well under
windows.
And not under anything else.
Now, if you would like to go see volumetric textures and multisample
rendering courtesy of OpenGL, you have a number of options, but IRIX on
an 02 is a pretty fair assessment.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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: 1 Sep 2000 18:52:24 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8omfu1$17la$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> One more point would be this:
>>
>> No matter how big ANY video driver for linux is, it does not exist inside
>> the kernel. Thats the point.
>
> That doesn't stop X from being able to crash the OS though. Any software
> that accesses hardware, regardless of the mode it's using can crash the
> computer.
I have never, ever seen X crash linux, ever. And ive been using linux constantly
for the past five years.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
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: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 11:46:11 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > What about if someone did not know that harmony was involved in the
> > citation?
>
> Harmony being the only attempt ever to clone Qt?
Someone who does not follow Qt or Harmony and has not stumbled onto the
existance of the project form other sources, it would be an unkown factor.
I for one did not know of Harmony until I read the information located by
the URL.
> Of course not. That's why when you obviously didn't find it, I did
> it for you! It's not like I resisted to do so, is it?
Which I thanked you for even though I didn't ask for it. You provided it to
support yourself when I said that I was taking your word for the quotation.
> Come on, I replied to a post that gave even LESS information! Jedi had
> just said "there were legal threats"!
Which was possible thanks to your being familar with the subject.
> > Put youself in the place of someone trying to locate the source for a
> > fragment of a quotation without know its full context or where or why it
was
> > made. Consider this quotation: "...this oasis, must have been an
> > important site at one time, a site of conquest and reconquest..." Where
> > would you look for it and in what context would you imagine it was made
and
> > who long would it take you to locate it?
>
> Well, we had a much narrower universe here, and I did provide
> the context without even being asked twice. It's done, let's move
> forward.
...or even being asked once. ;-)
The last I checked we are all in the same universe. There is the multiverse
theory and the results of the double slit experiment could be interpreted to
support it; however, we hare all in the same universe. Now you must realize
how it is for an "outsider" to trace down a fragment of a quotation even
when the original was posted in the usenet newsgroups.
I agree, let's move on, since it was you comments when offering the URL that
lead to side discussion.
But I won't leave you hanging with a partial quotation without the source.
It was a fragment of a comment I posted in alt.binaries.3d.bryce in response
to a posting of a CGI rendered image of an oasis and some ruins. Here is
the complete message:
================
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.3d.bryce
References: <864p0f$hnd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Lost Oasis
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 04:21:21 -0800
Lines: 25
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.2106.4
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.2106.4
What's the history of this oasis, must have been an
important site at one time, a site of conquest and
reconquest is in evidence. The toppled columns
appear grecian, there seems to be a varation of the
Ionic. The arches seem to suggest a roman or
subsequent culture; however the columns supporting
the arches are not typical of the same culture. This
would suggest that the roman or other culture rebuilt
this site from the remains of previous culture.....
Humm...Verrrrry Intterrresting
-- Rowan's and Martin's Laugh In
Carl.... wrote in message <864p0f$hnd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>My latest pic, a combination of bryce and trueSpace. Hope you enjoy. This
>is not at all how the picture started out, it was supposed to have been a
>camel train and sandstorm, what happened is anyones guess!!!
>
>--
>Carl :o)
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>www.clkn.freeserve.co.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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: 1 Sep 2000 18:54:28 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <ckDr5.8409$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "abraxas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:8omfu1$17la$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > One more point would be this:
>> > >
>> > > No matter how big ANY video driver for linux is, it does not exist
>> > > inside
>> > > the kernel. Thats the point.
>> >
>> > That doesn't stop X from being able to crash the OS though. Any
> software
>> > that accesses hardware, regardless of the mode it's using can crash the
>> > computer.
>>
>> Which is irrelevant to your earlier comparison when you stupidly tried
>> to compare a video driver on NT to a networking stack on Linux.
>
> It's entirely relevant. The argument was that since there is more code in
> kernel space, it makes it more likely to crash the OS. I say that you don't
> need to be in kernel space to crash the OS if you can manipulate hardware
> directly.
Youve missed the point. NT sucks partially because its kernel is bloated with big fat
unstable drivers. Linux does not have this particular brand of suckage, its suckage
lies completely elsewhere. Like in the politics of kernel header auditing.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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: 1 Sep 2000 18:56:08 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8on2n3$hdh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > That doesn't stop X from being able to crash the OS though. Any
> software
>> > that accesses hardware, regardless of the mode it's using can crash the
>> > computer.
>>
>> Unless the OS is written to prevent one user mode process from crashing
> the
>> entire system.
>
> No. I will repeat this again. *ANY* OS that allows direct hardware
> manipulation from a given process (user or kernel) can crash the machine.
> All I have to do is set the video hardware to an invalid state which faults
> the bus and the system is toast, user mode or not.
>
> In fact, this is why Netscape can often crash systems running X.
You're wrong, Netscape doesnt ever crash systems running X. It has never, ever
happened to me, and it has never, ever happened to anyone I know, with any
version of netscape and any version of XFree, accelleratedX and metroX. You are
completely incorrect.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (abraxas)
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: 1 Sep 2000 18:57:43 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:oiHr5.8423$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:8on2n3$hdh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > That doesn't stop X from being able to crash the OS though. Any
>> software
>> > > that accesses hardware, regardless of the mode it's using can crash
> the
>> > > computer.
>> >
>> > Unless the OS is written to prevent one user mode process from crashing
>> the
>> > entire system.
>>
>> No. I will repeat this again. *ANY* OS that allows direct hardware
>> manipulation from a given process (user or kernel) can crash the machine.
>> All I have to do is set the video hardware to an invalid state which
> faults
>> the bus and the system is toast, user mode or not.
>>
>> In fact, this is why Netscape can often crash systems running X.
>
> I have never seen any X client or server ever crash the system on any unix
> OS. I have seen it with X servers running on Dos and Windows though.
Erik is confusing the crashing (or the lock up) of the Xserver with the crashing
of the entire OS again. Hes done this before. His next argument will probably
be that a unix machine without a graphical interface is useless.
=====yttrx
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Sikes)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: 1 Sep 2000 18:58:08 GMT
In article <N6Hr5.8417$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Zenin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> : Yes. And? Does it define a games programming interface? No. OpenGL is
>> : supported on Win9x and NT/2000. So program for that and not DirectX -
>> : problem solved.
>>
>> Note this is despite extreme lobbying on the part of MS to game
>> developers and hardware makers to use Direct3D and not OpenGL,
>> despite OpenGL having many major advantages over Direct3D and
>> Direct3D having no technical advantage over OpenGL.
>
>Actually, this is no longer the case. Direct3D now surpasses OpenGL in most
>of the recent advances in 3D technology. The problem is that OpenGL is
>controlled by comittee and takes years to change the standard. They have an
>extension mechansim, but every vendor implements these extensions
>differently, forcing a developer that wants to use the new features into
>supporting each vendors version of those features.
Not quite true, there are "ARB-approved" extensions.
>For instance, Direct3D 8 will include volumetric textures, multisample
>rendering (including T-Buffer support) and several others.
T-Buffer...there's a feature everyone is crying for... ;-)
Regardless, all of those things can be (and are on GeForce for
instance) implemented as OpenGL extensions. You still have a similar
issue (as different vendor specific extensions) under DirectX, since
any particular card may or may not support those features.
>On top of this, DirectX 8 actually greatly simplifies Direct3D (It's
>complexity was one of the biggest complaints by people like John Carmack).
It can't eliminate the dependence on COM. Further, it's a shame that
it took 8 (Microsoft, so it was actually about 6) versions to get to
something that competes to some degree with OpenGL.
>Fact is, MS is pandering to the game developers and doing what they want.
>OpenGL is dragging it's feet, without implementing things even Direct3D 5
>was doing.
IMO, it's not worth the platform lockin to use Direct3D.
The bottom line, though, is the issue of closed, proprietary,
single-platform API versus open, cross-platform API. Many 3D folk
much prefer the latter.
Don't you think it's telling that Apple, a much more innovative
multimedia company than Microsoft, made OpenGL it's primary 3D API
last year?
Terry
--
Terry Sikes | Join the OpenGL Game Development Mailing List
[EMAIL PROTECTED] | To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
finger for PGP pub key | In message BODY (not subject):
My opinions - mine only! | sub OPENGL-GAMEDEV-L Your Name
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 16:08:55 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>
> Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > What about if someone did not know that harmony was involved in the
> > > citation?
> >
> > Harmony being the only attempt ever to clone Qt?
>
> Someone who does not follow Qt or Harmony and has not stumbled onto the
> existance of the project form other sources, it would be an unkown factor.
> I for one did not know of Harmony until I read the information located by
> the URL.
Ok.
> > Of course not. That's why when you obviously didn't find it, I did
> > it for you! It's not like I resisted to do so, is it?
>
> Which I thanked you for even though I didn't ask for it. You provided it to
> support yourself when I said that I was taking your word for the quotation.
Indeed, you are right :-) I'd say I did it so you wouldn't need to rely
on my recollection, but indeed you didn't ask for it.
> > Come on, I replied to a post that gave even LESS information! Jedi had
> > just said "there were legal threats"!
>
> Which was possible thanks to your being familar with the subject.
You know, Jedi could have done it too. He was subscribed to that list.
I wonder why he didn't. Ok, I take it back, I don't wonder.
> > > Put youself in the place of someone trying to locate the source for a
> > > fragment of a quotation without know its full context or where or why it
> was
> > > made. Consider this quotation: "...this oasis, must have been an
> > > important site at one time, a site of conquest and reconquest..." Where
> > > would you look for it and in what context would you imagine it was made
> and
> > > who long would it take you to locate it?
> >
> > Well, we had a much narrower universe here, and I did provide
> > the context without even being asked twice. It's done, let's move
> > forward.
>
> ...or even being asked once. ;-)
I'm proud of the service quality ;-)
> The last I checked we are all in the same universe. There is the multiverse
> theory and the results of the double slit experiment could be interpreted to
> support it; however, we hare all in the same universe. Now you must realize
> how it is for an "outsider" to trace down a fragment of a quotation even
> when the original was posted in the usenet newsgroups.
I used universe in a rather strange way, I must confess. Let's say that
the things we are talking about are a smaller set.
> I agree, let's move on, since it was you comments when offering the URL that
> lead to side discussion.
Ok with me :-)
> But I won't leave you hanging with a partial quotation without the source.
> It was a fragment of a comment I posted in alt.binaries.3d.bryce in response
> to a posting of a CGI rendered image of an oasis and some ruins. Here is
> the complete message:
Haha, nice :-)
[snip the full quote for bandwidth's sake]
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
