Linux-Advocacy Digest #874, Volume #28 Mon, 4 Sep 00 00:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (D. Spider)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a (Gary Hallock)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (D. Spider)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Gary Hallock)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to. ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("D'Arcy Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:12:37 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Tell it to the developers showcased here: http://download.cnet.com/ who
>are
>> >thriving BECAUSE there's one main standard.
>>
>> Tell it to Blue Mountain. Tell it to Real.
[...Simon's 'FUD Report' snipped; if we wanted to read MS press
releases, we'd go to their web page...]
--
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:15:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> > The average app today is approximately 350,000 lines of code.
>>
>> All the better argument for programming with portability in mind to help
>> leverage your product into more markets.
>
>Much easier said than done. [...]
No shit. Competing is much easier said than done. Superior product is
much easer said than done. Business acumen is much easier said than
done. Deal with it.
--
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] (D. Spider)
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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 03:11:17 GMT
It appears that on Mon, 4 Sep 2000 12:25:21 +1000, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Alan Boyd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> According to The Wit and Wisdom of Erik Funkenbusch:
>> >
>> > > 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.
>>
>> Apps don't run in Explorer. The right pane is just a directory list
>> with file names. It makes no sense to drop icons on file names.
>>
>> I always thought you should be able to drop a file onto a task bar
>> button and it should react the same as dropping it on the program name
>> in explorer.
>
>So what should the behaviour be when I drop a file onto the Word button on
>the taskbar ?
>
>Should it open the file in a new window ?
>Should it insert the contents of the file in the currently open document ?
>At the beginning or at the current cursor position ?
>Should it link to the file being dropped ? At the beginning or at the
>current cursor position ?
The best solution would be the default behavior, i.e. the same thing
as dropping it to the program name - open (in a new window.)
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:19:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> >> You're full of sheep-dip, as usual. Economic realities forced them to
>> >> do it,
>> >
>> >How so?
>>
>> How not?
>
>Ask the 40-60% that DIDN'T opt for the per processor pricing.
You ask them. I'm already familiar with the economic realities and why
your statistic is irrelevant. Go figure it out on your own time.
[...]
>First you say it was because of "cliff edge" price difference then you say
>that price didn't matter. I don't get it. [...]
You don't get anything. You're a god-damn moron.
>When you sober up could you sort
>out your position.
>Ohh.. and I noticed your still using Windows by choice. What's up with that?
--
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:21:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >Service packs are the "quarterly updates" you're asking for, and
>they're
>> >> >free.
>> >>
>> >> No they aren't. They're incomplete.
>> >
>> >They're complete updates. They update everything that needs updating.
>>
>> Are you at all familiar with the word "complete"? That would be
>> 'everything'. No qualifiers. Service packs are patches.
>
>So basically, you'd like to increase the size of a patch/update to about
>670Mb, so that everything's in there, making it impossible to download for
>most people. Nice.
No, you're confabulating again. I would like a patch to be a patch, an
upgrade to be an upgrade, and update to be an update, and a package to
be a package, as defined by 'the market', not by the monopoly.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:21:11 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[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
Christopher Smith wrote:
> "Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Fri, 1 Sep 2000 20:34:55 -0700,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > brought forth the following words...:
> >
> > >
> > >Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:8oprjt$dab$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >> On a desktop unix box, you'll most likely be using X, even if just to
> have
> > >a
> > >> dozen XTerms open. Kill X, and everything goes with it. The
> difference
> > >> between this and having The whole OS crash is largely semantic.
> > >
> >
> >
> > For a standalone workstation, maybe, not for a system that is either a
> > server, or is doing distributed processing.
>
> I was speaking in the context of a workstation, since for either platform
> that is only where video/GUI usage should even have a chance of affecting
> stability.
>
But workstation and server are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Where I
work, we each have an RS/6000 running AIX as our workstation. All are
connected to the LAN with AFS for a distributed file system. Most of these
machines are in a batch pool using LoadLeveler to distribute the workload.
There would be a lot of people upset if their jobs were killed after a few
hours of running. I can kill X without affecting those jobs but rebooting is
not something I would want to have to do. So, no, the difference between
killing X and the whole OS crashing is not largely semantic.
Gary
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider)
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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 03:19:08 GMT
It appears that on Mon, 4 Sep 2000 13:12:31 +1000, in
comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"D. Spider" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> It appears that on Sat, 2 Sep 2000 14:53:54 +1000, in
>> comp.os.linux.advocacy "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:8opt09$2ta$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:8oprjt$dab$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> > On a desktop unix box, you'll most likely be using X, even if just to
>> >have
>> >> a
>> >> > dozen XTerms open. Kill X, and everything goes with it. The
>difference
>> >> > between this and having The whole OS crash is largely semantic.
>> >>
>> >> If all you want is a number of xterm running, all you need to do is
>don't
>> >> run X and take advantage of your box's VC's. -- Less overhead, faster
>> >> response, and perhaps better security.
>> >
>> >Yes, it's possible, but it's tedious to switch between them. Most people
>> >I've observed using *nix boxes don't do this, they just fire up xterms
>(or a
>> >variant thereof) - it's just easier.
>>
>> "Tedious?" You're joking, right?
>
>Not at all. Switching between VTs, especially if one of them is running X,
>is not as easy as using Xterms on a decent WM (ie one that has a hotkey like
>Alt+TAB). Plus in X you get the benefit of better fonts and higher
>resolutions.
I use both setups on a regular basis, and I heartily disagree. Alt-Fx
is a lot easier than alt-tab*x till you find the right window.
>> VCs are a lot easier to switch between than Xterms.
>>
>> The usual reason to start X is to run something like Netscape or the
>> GIMP that requires it.
>
>The main reason to start X is because multitasking from a GUI is easier than
>multitasking from a commandline. Even when you've got VTs.
Totally untrue. You should try multitasking from the command line. If
we were talking about dos you would have a point, but we aren't. You
don't even need multiple consoles to multitask, extra consoles are so
that you can deal with multiple outputs.
>> >The point is, for the vast majoruty of users, an X crash is just as bad
>as
>> >an OS crash.
>> >
>> >> > I might add that NT has IME recovered a lot more gracefully from
>sudden
>> >> > power outages (power is flaky around here) than Linux. I've never
>lost
>> >an
>> >> > NTFS filesystem, I've lost several ext2 ones.
>> >>
>> >> Are you using UPS with you host monitoring and auto shutdown when the
>> >power
>> >> is off too long? I the environment that you describe it is mandatory
>> >> reguardless of the OS.
>> >
>> >No, because I can't afford UPSes. It's not exactly mission critical
>data,
>> >just my home machines.
>> >
>>
>> Take some advice, budget yourself a UPS as top priority. Your reports
>> are making a lot more sense to me in that light. I also have a poor
>> power supply, and I've had hardware damaged by it before. The damage
>> can be subtle - with a damaged processor I was able to boot into
>> windows fine (although there were some strange bugs in certain
>> programs, in particular compressed files starting showing up as
>> corrupt when they weren't) whereas linux locked while trying to
>> decompress the kernel. It drove me nuts for a bit, until I isolated
>> the problem, everything worked fine again (if very slowly) when I
>> disabled the onboard cache. Replacing the CPU 'fixed' all the apparent
>> software problems. I wouldn't be at all surprised if you have some
>> hardware problems, that would explain your symptoms to a T. It doesn't
>> take many processors to pay for a UPS.
>
>I have multiple surge suppressors and tripswitches. I'm unaware of any way
>a loss of power equivalent to turning a machine on and off would damage
>decent hardware.
Surge protectors stop spikes - they don't do a thing about relatively
mild voltage fluctuations. Those fluctuations can, however, lay
excessive stress on some of the the more sensitive components in a
modern computer, and drastically shorten their life.
>In any event, my experiences are shared by friends with similar spreads of
>hardware and software, even in better environments. Some have better
>stability with Linux, some with Windows (due, obviously, to hardware
>differences). None would seriously argue one was more stable than the
>other.
Everyone I know that's run them side by side disagrees vehemently, as
does my own experience.
>There are no problems with my hardware. NT would barf real quick if there
>was, it's quite sensitive to hardware problems.
Not really.
>> Linux is a lot more picky about hardware integrity than Windows.
>
>Erm, one of the commonly stated advantages of Linux over Windows
>(particularly NT) is that it is _less_ picky about hardware. Better get
>your story straight :).
Depends on what the grounds for the pickiness is. Linux doesn't deal
well with fake modems, some newer hardware that requires proprietary
drivers, and that sort of thing. However it is far pickier about mild
memory subsystem problems, for instance.
#####################################################
My email address is posted for purposes of private
correspondence only. Consent is expressly NOT given
to receive advertisements, or bulk mailings of any
kind.
Since Deja.com will not archive my messages without
altering them for purposes of advertisement, deja.com
is barred from archiving my messages.
#####################################################
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:25:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Darren Winsper in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Thu, 31 Aug 2000 18:48:03 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Maybe all 'current' upgrade products. But anyone who got an upgrade to
>> Win95 knows that you can't install it on a bare machine; a Microsoft OS
>> has to be pre-installed in order to install the upgrade. There are ways
>> around it, of course, because it is an empty pretense used solely for
>> anti-competitive purposes, but the standard installation package will
>> not install the OS on an empty hard drive.
>
>That is a lie. I have installed Windows 95 (The very
>first version) upgrade version on a blank hard disk
>before. What it did ask me to do was to stick an
>appropriate prior version to prove the upgrade was
>legit. It then proceeded to install without trouble.
And if the prior version was DOS from three years and two owners
previous, and you don't have that disk?
I've already been over the "you can get around it" justification. I
thought I'd made that clear. Given A) Win95 upgrade and B) blank hard
disk, Microsoft makes it difficult and sometimes impossible to install.
Likewise, given A) Win95 OEM and B) non-blank hard disk, Microsoft makes
it difficult and sometimes impossible to install. Its an unreasonable
expense on the consumer, its anti-competitive, and its wrong. Case
closed.
--
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:26:26 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>> >Who do you work for, Max? [...]
>>
>> I work for ELTRAX, soon to be Verso Technologies. We are big in ASP and
>> network services. I work in the Manages Services group, which
>> implements Network Operations Centers using software like Netcool, HP
>> OpenView, NerveCenter, Concord Network Health, Remedy ARS, etc. I do
>> consulting and educational presentations and instruction. AFAIK, we
>> have no particular arrangements with Microsoft or any Linux vendor.
>
>OK... so I'll take you at your word. Now do the same courtesy to Mike and
>take him at his. He's already said who he works for.
I am not aware that Mike has done so, nor even responded to my
questions. Perhaps I've missed the message traffic. What precisely did
he say?
--
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:30:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said D'Arcy Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>Getting DVD software onto non-MS systems is a technical issue.
>The licensing issue is thus technical in that context.
The licensing issue is thus meaningless in that context. Technical
issues cannot 'prevent' DVD software on non-MS systems, that's the
point. It is only licensing issues which prevent that, and those are
non-technical. I don't understand how you can support a GPL DVD created
by reverse engineering, and think that licensing of DVD is enforceable
to begin with. Perhaps you are unaware of the conflict. Or perhaps I'm
unaware of the circumstances you're referring to. Is the fact that the
recent DVD software wasn't implemented by 'clean room' methods
important, in your opinion?
--
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! ======
------------------------------
Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:30:44 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Ingemar Lundin wrote:
> through scsi-emulation?
So. What exactly is the interface to a cd-rw drive? Is it IDE? Is it
SCSI? And what difference does it make if the driver module is not
ide-cd.o? The driver comes with Linux and works.
Gary
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:34:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> Well, I wasn't considering Microsoft RPC when I mentioned RPC. Its that
>> original RPC that I was referring to. NFS and NIS aren't 'based on it'
>> so much as use it; they are linked to it in the same way, I suppose, as
>> RMI is linked to Java.
>
>In this case "based on" and "uses" are pretty much interchangable terms.
I figured that from your description of RMI. Its the same relationship,
actually, with SNMP and SMI. SMI is how you define MIBs, lists of
management information available. It is incredibly complex to try to
build MIBs. But the outrageously minimal nature of SNMP, the protocol
used to transfer the information referenced by the MIB (I've described
it as 'the most minimal protocol possible') is what its 'based on', and
exclusively uses.
>Even more so when one considered that had NFS and NIS be developed without
>the use of RPC their underlying behavior, performance and protocols would
>have been different.
>
>This would be just like saying that KDE is based on Qt.
Yes, I can understand that. I think this would be a reason to
re-implement network file systems and distributed directory/permissions
systems, actually. Is *that* why NFS and NIS are so 'blah'?
--
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: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Open lettor to CommyLinux Commy's, and all other commy's to.
Date: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 03:40:38 GMT
Wow!!
Im Swedish but i dont think have accumulated a fraction of so much
misspellings
since i begun learning english in third grade, as in this post.
/IL
"Tim Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Its' Labar day now and every Commy-loving Lie-nux Commy and his dog that
cappitollists
> paid for think's
> that working peopal bilt this cuontry all by themselfs but let me teal you
peepal
> tht they coulda'nt
> done it without capptittallists and there monney. Labar is just a
commoddity
> like the masheans it
> opporates. Without Cappitol it just sits thear like a stuppit hoarse or a
mual.
> People that want labarers
> to halve all the power want us to be like country's whear poeple like to
kill
> each other all the time,
> like Kosovo thoas peppel are fucked up aren't thay? But hear inthe US, we
halve
> LAWS. And LAWS protect
> all teh smart peeple with the monney from all the stuppit broots out thear
> that want to take it all
> away and blow it off on hookers and beer and destroy society.
>
> If it wasant' for capitlists, you'd all still be living on farm's, working
20
> ours a day and then
> you'd half to fite off the primait Indions the other for hours and you
think
> that 12 is bad? And the
> governmant wouldnt of got rid of the indions withotu cappitol either they
wood
> of just let them run all
> over the plaice and we'd halve a MESS today but the capittolists said NO
> THEAS STUPPIT INDIONS ARE
> CAUSTING US MONNY GET RID OF THEM RITE NOW!
>
> Commy union's are gettign what they want now becoze thear is a labar
shortadge
> (we halvent replaced it
> all with tecknollogy yet), and all they reelly do is make everyboddy pour
even
> the workors. They make
> company's worhtless and noboddy want's to by there stalk so thay half to
sell
> it real cheap. We half to
> get rid of union's and there stupit dimmands for higher wages and job
securety.
>
> Lixnu is getting stronger to, because company's don't realize how mutch
munny
> their losing when they
> don't run Windows. They halve so mutch monny they don't know what to due
with
> it, so they make all there
> workors diddle around with Linux all day, and they make Microsoft's stalk
go
> down the toob, wich makes
> everyboddy lose monny, because who doesant own Microsoft stalk except
Linux
> zellots and those stupit
> peopel at McDonnalds that always get the order rong. Meanwhile, the
CommyLinux
> CommyVirus is gettign put
> in place, and pretty soon we'll all half to surrendor to the Commy's
because
> if we don't our computors will
> crash and itl'l be like Y2K with no ellectrissitty and all that Capitol
has
> done for uss wil be destroyed.
>
>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Sun, 03 Sep 2000 23:41:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>No; based on the court's breakdown of the market, Microsoft does not have a
>monopoly in the Windows 2000/Server/Workstation arena. In other words, if
>you support the Judge in the DOJ vs Microsoft case, you must also support
>the conclusion that Windows 2000 is NOT regarded as a monopoly product, and
>is immune from any decision made in the case -- by the Judge's own findings.
You don't seem to understand what the court's market breakdown was all
about, and what it had to do with 'the relevant market'. Products don't
monopolize; companies monopolize.
[...]
>You'll have to brush up on your understanding of the DOJ vs. Microsoft case.
>Windows 2000 is separate from it.
You'll have to say something that makes sense, before I can respond to
it. W2K is separate from what?
[...]
>> And the answer is: No, they're being anti-competitive.
>
>Doesn't matter with Windows 2000.
That is so ludicrous a response as to be positively silly. I don't know
what you're trying to say. What difference do you think it makes that
W2K was not even available when the trial was held? "Oh, you have a new
product? Well, then, I guess you must not be a monopoly then." ???
[...]
>I'd like you to provide one quote from the DOJ vs. MS case that says that
>Microsoft's server OS's are affected by any decision.
Find me one that says they're not. I can't find you a quote on
something that is irrelevant to everything the court said. What
difference do you think this makes?
>They do not have a monopoly on the server.
They don't have a monopoly on the client, either. They have a monopoly
on "the market for operating systems designed to run on Intel-compatible
personal computers (PCs)." Was that the quote you were asking about?
>Windows 2000 is a server-class
>OS, not a consumer OS. The case regards the consumer OS. The rules change
>depending on the marketplace you're considering.
The case regards Microsoft. How it labels its products are obviously
not at issue, other than whether its a Web Browser or an Operating
System, for the second and third charges, in addition to monopolizing PC
OSes.
--
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: "D'Arcy 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: Mon, 04 Sep 2000 03:47:14 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I don't understand how you can support a GPL DVD created
> by reverse engineering, and think that licensing of DVD is enforceable
> to begin with.
Who says I think it should be enforceable? I didn't.
Please try to pay attention - when I said the post did not
reflect my opinions I meant it.
> Perhaps you are unaware of the conflict. Or perhaps I'm
> unaware of the circumstances you're referring to. Is the fact that the
> recent DVD software wasn't implemented by 'clean room' methods
> important, in your opinion?
All I was responding to begin with was someone saying
that it was illegal for people to create DVD software on
Linux (or perhaps it was alternative platforms). I pointed
out that it is not illegal - get a license.
I did not intend that to reflect my personal opinions
on the matter - which is why I stated that the post did not
reflect my opinions!
..darcy
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
