Linux-Advocacy Digest #817, Volume #28 Fri, 1 Sep 00 20:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (Richard)
Re: philosophy is better than science (Richard)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: businesses are psychopaths (Richard)
software (Richard)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 23:01:00 GMT
On Sat, 2 Sep 2000 08:40:05 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"Shane Phelps" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> Alright, I'll bite...
>> >>
>> >> Do you mean the ones that demand a previous version of Windows?????
>> >> or is this perhaps a case of installing the upgrade on one disk while
>> >> retaining the previous version of Windows on the other?
>> >>
>> >> The only Microsoft upgrade disks I've ever seen since about Windows
>> >> 3.11 and MS-DOS 5 have checked for the existence of an earlier
>> >> version before allowing the installation of the later versiion.
>> >
>> >Win95 will ask you to insert the first floppy disk from Win3.11 before
>> >proceeding - thus avoiding having to actually install Win3.11 first
>>
>> I'd never seen it do that, though I suppose it might be possible. But
>> that simply confounds the point. I don't recall anybody saying that if
>> I don't still have a readable first floppy disk from Win3.11, I don't
>> have a legal license to Win3.11.
>
>If you've lost it, and can prove you actually owned it, then ring up
>Microsoft and they'll send you a replacement for media cost (or an
>equivalent thereof).
OTOH: a full version doesn't subject you to any of this bullshit.
You just install it.
>
>> All of the ways around the 'upgrade packaging', unfortunately, are
>> simply further illustrations of the problem itself. You're trying to
>> justify the actions of a monopolist, and may be somewhat successful in
>> an attempt to obfuscate the point that they are anti-competitive
>> actions, it does not change the reality of the claim that they are
>> unacceptable. If they weren't dubious to begin with, I'd certainly give
>> even MS the benefit of the doubt. But they aren't; they're a
>> fabrication. Microsoft's upgrade packaging is offensive and incredibly
>> costly to the consumer. You aren't going to explain that away by saying
>> that its possible to get around the problems, or there's some thin
>> justification for the problems to begin with.
>
>If you can think of a better way to be able to make even a token gesture at
>avoiding rampant ripping-off by people buying upgrades when they don't own a
>qualifying product, then please enlighten us all.
Nearly everyone is already paying for Windows anyways.
The only sort that could "rip off Microsoft" would be an entirely
new customer. The few people that fall into that category should
be having the red carpet rolled out in front of them rather than
barbed wire.
Nevermind the likely fact that even an upgrade licence purchase
at retail is putting more money in Microsoft's pocket than any
OEM purchase associated with the likes of Dell or Compaq.
The two different price schemes just serve to create an enviroment
where Microsoft can BULLY it's bulk customers.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: how large corporations test on the Psychopathy Checklist-Revised
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 23:17:48 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Aug 2000 17:20:03 GMT,
> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Clinical Description of the Psychopath
>
> > No loyalty to any person, group, code, organization, or philosophy;
>
> Most CEO's are actually quite loyal to the corporation, their
> families, and their philosphies.
Most CEOs of large corporations do not dominate the decision making
of their corporation. And in fact, what you're saying is a blatant
lie since most CEOs of large corporations have no trouble firing all
their employees and rehiring them in order to steal their pension
funds (the current fad in management circles in the USA) and they
have no trouble sacrificing their families on the altar of Work (a
job requirement!) by working 80 hour weeks for years on end. As for
"philosophies", most CEOs believe in nothing more than acquisitive
greed and viciousness; their philosoghy is the null philosophy.
It's quite telling that you only took exception with the tiniest
part of my article, and you failed ignonimously at even that.
> >[Let's score the Typical Corporation owned by Mr. Ty Coon]
>
> Your stupid stretch of imagination could be applied to anyone. Your
In fact, it couldn't. Only about 1% of humans fit that description,
though "role models" in our society (CEOs, white-collar criminals)
will have a higher incidence rate since our societies value psycho-
pathic traits so highly. Perhaps this is the reason you believe that
"anyone" (yourself included?) could be diagnosed as a psychopath.
Yet again you fail to appreciate the extent to which most humans
fall short of the "ideal" promoted by society; a psychopathic ideal
in this case.
> post is just another expression of your anger at the world.
Your post is yet another testament to your crushing idiocy and
utter inability to construct anything resembling a coherent logical
argument. How the world manages to survive with people like you in
it is beyond my comprehension. This argument is over, say what you
like because I won't respond.
(Oh, and your attempt to psychoanalyze me is laughable and pathetic.
Even merely measuring it as insults, it's too weak for words and
utterly lacking in imagination.)
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: philosophy is better than science
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 23:25:04 GMT
Perry Pip wrote:
> No society is perfect. But if you want to make it better you have to
> start with a positive attitude.
Wrong cretin, in order to fix a problem, you first have to acknowledge
the problem exists and it has to piss you off enough for you to do
something abou it. Which is why you're unlikely to ever contribute
anything significant to humanity since you compulsively rationalize
away everything that's deeply fucked about the world.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:38:43 +1000
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 00:55:29 -0500,
> Erik Funkenbusch, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
> ><[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.
>
> Are you confusing crashing the X server with the OS <again> ?
I doubt it, I've seen Netscape hang up the entire machine (I assumed it was
Netscpae, since the problem only ever occurred running it).
Of course, for most people on workstations, locking up the X server is just
as bad as locking up the entire machine.
> I have had netscape bomb, I have (once or twice in 4 years) had netscape
> kill the xserver, I have never had netscape take down the whole system.
It happens. The X server is quite capable of hanging the entire machine,
and Netscape is quite capable of initiating that hang.
I'm surprised you've only had Netscape bomb the X server once or twice in
four years. It happens quite regularly to me.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:35:49 +1000
"Curtis Bass" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> "Joe R." wrote:
> >
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > >"Joe R." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> -- snip --
>
> > > >I stopped trying to reason with him when, after dozens of posts
> > > >regarding antitrust law, he attempted to wiggle out of embarrassing
> > > >defeat by proclaiming that he'd been using his own definition of
> > > >"monopoly" that bears little resemblance to the common one.
> > >
> > > Well, I certainly can't let such a personal attack go unnoticed, but I
> > > must say that it practically fills my heart with glee to see you two
> > > discussing how incomprehensible you find my statements. I have this
> > > theory, see, that if I keep posting, despite the trolling, and try to
be
> > > as accurate, consistent, and practical as I can,
> >
> > That's the problem. I believe you _are_ being as accurate, consistent,
> > and practical as you can. Yet you're still incomprehensible.
>
> Max may be "incomprehensible" to certain individuals, but he is by no
> means universally so, as I comprehend him rather well, but then I tend
> to have a stronger grasp of English than many, perhaps even most of the
> people whom I read here in USENET. One reason I don't engage in the
> discussion is primarily due to my own ignorance of the subject matter,
> to which I freely admit (but I tend to write quite eloquently on
> subjects with which I am familiar), yet I can credit Max for providing
> URLs and arguing from a position of research, citing what seem to be
> relevant cases and precedents. His opponents seem to simply say "you are
> ignorant, you don't know what you're talking about, yadda yadda yadda"
> and leave it at that.
Max arguing from a position of research is a very rare thing. This
anti-trust discussion he is in is the first time I've ever seen it, and is
fueled more by his irrational hatred of Microsoft rather than any inherent
character traits. That doesn't stop him drawing just plain wrong
conclusions, however.
I challenge you to hold the above opinion after you have argued with him
over something you are knowledgable about, and he is not.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: businesses are psychopaths
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 23:35:21 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> Corporations are fine, I think, as long as they have charters stricter
> than "make money", and anti-trust laws are more fully enforced.
:-) Wouldn't hurt if those charters were actually revoked when the
corporations fail to obey them. But I don't agree that corporations
are fine. Like psychopaths, they are /tolerable/ until you have too
many of them and their anti-empathy starts to destroy normal humans'
sanity. We are arguably long past that point and suffering the con-
sequences.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: software
Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2000 23:38:42 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >Just for you, I'll say that I want it to run on the 80x86, StrongARM,
> >Alpha and SPARC.
>
> Do you think you will have a serious market across all of those
> architectures(sp?) ?
Yes, the current systems are decades obsolete and pathetic. And even
if nobody else adopts it, it's enough that I will.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:29:43 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8opaa5$eje$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8op64i$o23$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > >Careful of what you ask for! Do you really want Windows 2000 Quarter
> 1,
> > > >Windows 2000 Quarter 2, Windows 2000 Quarter 3, Windows 2000 Quarter
3,
> > > >Windows 2001 Quarter 1, ... ?
> > >
> > > ...better than a random collection of system libraries installed
> > > by a random collection of end user applications.
> >
> > Granted that it would be more ordered, but would you want to have to
> > purchase an upgrade fro Microsoft every three months paying them from
> around
> > $80.00 to about $300.00 each time for each Windows computer you are
> > responsible for?
>
> Service packs are the "quarterly updates" you're asking for, and they're
> free.
Where are the approx. 12 services packs for my version of Windows? The
number of quarterly service pack from 1995 to 1998. Why does my retail
version of Windows not support the newer Windows filesystem that was
introduced into latter version of Windows 95?
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:31:29 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8opag1$umt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If you can think of a better way to be able to make even a token gesture
at
> avoiding rampant ripping-off by people buying upgrades when they don't own
a
> qualifying product, then please enlighten us all.
How about what was standard in the industry before?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 19:01:35 -0500
"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:ZMNr5.475
> > FYI, the "fuss" was because MS didn't document their extensions, which
the
> > standard did not require for the extension field.
>
> Ah, but isn't Kerberos supposed to be an open standard? And didn't they
> leave open the extentions to provide means of adding features? If M$ uses
> these, and don't document their extentions, doesn't this break the goal of
> an open standard?
Then the standard should have specified that extensions must be documented,
though I'm unsure how they would enforce that.
There's nothing wrong with creating a superset of a standard, which is what
MS did. They were fully compatible with said standard, while proding extra
features.
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sat, 2 Sep 2000 09:58:53 +1000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8opeji$jrv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8opag1$umt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > If you can think of a better way to be able to make even a token gesture
> at
> > avoiding rampant ripping-off by people buying upgrades when they don't
own
> a
> > qualifying product, then please enlighten us all.
>
> How about what was standard in the industry before?
>
Which was ?
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 19:17:21 -0500
"Terry Sikes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8oou80$rah$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >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.
Yes, and how long does it take to get an extension ARB approved? Six
months? 12? Meanwhile, your compeitor is using DirectX with full support
of the most recent technology on every supported vendors card.
> >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.
Exactly.
> >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.
DirectX focused on the game subset. OpenGL on the professional workstation
subset.
> >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.
You'd rather support 20 different vendors extensions?
> 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?
No, it means that Apple is lazy and doesn't want put yet another poker in
the fire by maintaing QuickTime VR and other 3D API's.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 1 Sep 2000 16:50:47 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8opf3o$45q$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8opeji$jrv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8opag1$umt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > If you can think of a better way to be able to make even a token
gesture
> > at
> > > avoiding rampant ripping-off by people buying upgrades when they don't
> own
> > a
> > > qualifying product, then please enlighten us all.
> >
> > How about what was standard in the industry before?
> >
>
> Which was ?
The software vendor/developer would keep a record of the registered users,
contact them when a new version is about to come out and offer them the
purchase of the next version as a deep discount. The version shipped would
be that same as the retail version that any new user or unregistered user
would purchase at full retail. That was the standard for the industry, and
was Microsoft's practice as well.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
