Linux-Advocacy Digest #987, Volume #28 Fri, 8 Sep 00 01:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a (Mike Byrns)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How low can they go...? ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform (ZnU)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Metcalfe on Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Computer and memory ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[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
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 04:09:20 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Bruce Ediger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8p84kt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider) wrote:
> > > > >No, MS told the world that. MDI is a much better way of doing things
> > > > >in *certain applications.* Why do people have so much trouble
> > > > >understanding that different problems have different optimal
> > > > >solutions?
> > > >
> > > > I guess it's just really, really hard to imagine which certain
> > > > application(s) that MDI might be optimal.
> > > >
> > > > You know that old saying about how every problem looks like a nail
> > > > if your only tool is a hammer? Well, if MDI is your hammer, every
> > > > problem looks like your thumb.
> > >
> > > Since when was MDI the only style of Windows programs available? Which
> you
> > > hammer story woulds seem that you are suggesting.
> >
> > I never did see your "reason" for MDI. I'm interested...
> >
>
> I was just waiting to see if anyone in this thread has any memory of the
> real reasons, so far all I have seen is two corny and childish replies. I
> was hoping for a serious reply, but perhaps that is too much to hope for,
> you are right I will not write and then post it.
You won't post it? I'm confused but still interested.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 23:56:41 -0400
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:39b771b7$2$yrgbherq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>
>> >Gary Hallock wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > Kennedy wanted to get us out (and there are tapes to prove THAT,
>too),
>> >> > but LBJ decided to insert 500,000 men instead.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Johnson also wanted to get us out - it was part of his 1964 campaign.
>Goldwater
>> >> wanted to extend to war into China and use nuclear weapons.
>> >> The fact is that every president since Eisenhower promised to get us
>out of
>> >> Vietnam and each ended up actually getting us in deeper. That
>includes Nixon.
>> >> Viewing Vietnam as Johnson's war is very simplistic.
>>
>> >Who sent over the first combat unit larger than a company?
>> >Who sent the first squadron of Air Force ground support craft?
>>
>> >Who slided our troops from the position of tag-along ADVISORS into
>> >full-fledged direct combatants.
>>
>> >Before LBJ, yes, Advisors took part in fighting...this is routine...
>Anybody
>> >who goes out in the bush carries a firearm, and shoots when it gets
>hairy.
>>
>> >But before LBJ, it was always a couple of Americans giving advice and
>> >assistance to a much larger body of Viet Namese.
>>
>>
>> Plug in to how Ike sent aircraft carriers into the Gulf and offered to
>drop
>> nukes on the Vietmin (sp) in 1954 to support the French -- then think of
>the
>> CIA running lose in SEA, and you will begin to understand who started the
>> Vietnam war.
>Who gives a FUCK! I've heard of off topic but this should be illegal. Get
>this shit out of here!
Listen you jackass troll, what is off-topic is you thinking you have anything
worth listening too. Get out of the OS2 ng moron.
BTW, I do understand that your real problem is that you are such a complete
idiot that you can't stand anyone who points out that you don't have anything
worth saying. -- Which is the only reason for your off-topic comments to me.
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
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: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 23:27:27 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Now you are changing defintions again. You didn't mention
> application embedding before. Although even that is of
> dubious value.
Dubious value? You're kidding. Tell that to AOL who uses the embedded IE
in their application. Tell that to Intuit that uses the embedded IE as the
basis for their entire interface. Tell that to Neoplanet, that have made an
entire commercial product based on IE's rendering engine ebedded into their
product (and before you say it, yes that includes rendering into a surface
in the app). Dubious value indeed. There is literally billions of dollars
being made by companies using IE embedded in their applications.
> If one app can't control the windows of another in Win32
> without some unecessarily low level hack, that sounds
> more like a Microsoft problem than a Netscape one.
Hack? What are you talking about? IE is provided via COM. COM is not a
hack, nor is it "low level"
------------------------------
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: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 23:31:07 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p92ne$c3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You are again ignoring the fact that the name "Windows 95" refers to 4
> > distinct versions of the program, produced between 1995 and 1998. Two
> > significant versions, OSR2 (950b) added things like Fat32, IE3
(integrated
> > into the OS, though not the shell) and preliminary USB support, and OSR
> 2.5
> > which added IE4 and significantly better USB support.
> >
> > You also forget that MS offered to ship the original retail Windows 95
to
> > satisfy the court, but the DOJ objected and claimed this version was
> > hoplessly out of date.
> >
> > But all that is irrelevant, since we were talking about the allegedly
> > fabricated videotape, which disputed professor Edward Feltons IE removal
> > program. This occured in Febuary of 1999.
>
> No, that cideotape came much latter, I am talking about the original
claims.
> Which was not limited to only newwr versions. So! You NOW admit that
> Microsoft has failed to permit the purchasers of their original version of
> Windows 95 to the latter upgrade versions of the OS permitting upgrade
ONLY
> through purchase of news prebuilt computers systems that came with the
newer
> versions of Windows 95 bundled in.
The "original claims" took place in 1998 when MS was originally enjoined to
remove IE.
Windows 95 was released in August of 1995.
Windows 95 OSR1 was released at the end of 1995
Windows 95 OSR2 was released in 1996.
Windows 95 OSR2.5 was released in late 1997.
Those versions existed when the judge made his original injunction.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 23:33:48 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p92ne$c3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So! You NOW admit that
> Microsoft has failed to permit the purchasers of their original version of
> Windows 95 to the latter upgrade versions of the OS permitting upgrade
ONLY
> through purchase of news prebuilt computers systems that came with the
newer
> versions of Windows 95 bundled in.
What's to "admit". It's common knowledge that you couldn't upgrade to
certain features without buying a new computer. 99% of the rest of the
features were available as downloads to upgrade an original Win95 machine.
The things you couldn't get without buying new hardware was USB support and
FAT32.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 00:20:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Keith T. Williams in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
[...]
>> It is the nagging suspicion that you are too stupid (and/or dishonest
>> and lazy) to work with real technology and this is your motivation for
>> spewing naive and ridiculous attempts to hand-wave the known
>> difficulties of using Microsoft's software as uniquely crappy and
>> problematic amongst all software, none of which is perfect which causes
>> us to attack you so briskly.
>
>Is that why you are attacking him? I thought that it was because he is doing
>what you are claiming can't be done.
No, I'm attacking him because I never claimed it couldn't be done, but I
claimed it couldn't be done reliably (and still know, for a fact, this
is true) in enough environments to be considered a usable product. His
anecdotal evidence only provides justification for more people to be as
stupid as he is, in not recognizing the inherent problems and flaws
which exist in the solution, but which he simply hasn't encountered or
become aware of, yet. That's why I'm attacking him. Thanks for asking.
[...]
>Max, it's a good thing you have suggested that we keep these threads civil.
>I would hate to think what they would be like if they were not.
If you'll notice, 'civility' is not the cause I champion. I want
reasonable and reasoned arguments; this generally includes being calm
and civil, yes, and to be perfectly honest, although I've ridiculed
Stuart's statements, I haven't stopped being either calm or reasonable.
When someone like Stuart posts pathetic pablum, I feel more than
justified in pointing out that fact and doing whatever seem appropriate
for encouraging him, and anyone reading his words, to be reasonable and
reasoned or not bother posting.
To be perfectly honest, one of my fears is that being too calm and civil
would lead to passive-aggressive post-modernist bullshit, and I abhor
that as much as flame-wars.
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! ======
------------------------------
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: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 23:35:49 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p92ng$c3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:4%Ht5.6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Spoken like someone that has never written a line of code in his life.
> You
> > can't just "take out" fundamental architectural changes to software.
This
> > is similar to a judge ordering that the basement be removed from 100
story
> > skyscraper.
> >
> > It's easy to just say "The architects and construction company put in in
> > there, they can easily take it out".
>
> Have you considered RCS, SCCS, CVS, et al?
Have you considered that rolling back to a previous version was not allowed?
The judge specifically forbade MS from offering previous versions, claiming
them obsolete. MS would have had to completely rewrite existing components
to remove any trace of IE while maintaining the new features they offered
(many of which were provided by IE, such as HTML Help).
That's not something you can just roll back.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 04:08:50 GMT
The system that fell over on the Yorktown was a bridge navigation
control system. There is no requirement for processing sensitive data
on such a system, and in all probability the box was properly stickered
with a label stating such.
The DoD can purchase anything it wants under a waiver system that is
part of the purchasing criteria you mention. If Navy feels that Linux
provides a better solution for a navigation control system than any
other OS, they will apply for and be granted a waiver and the TCSEC and
all its rainbow books can go to hell.
You really want Linux on an aircraft carrier? Then how much money will
Redhat contribute to election campaigns this year? How many political
action committees do they finance? How many executive retreats for
military top echelon have they sponsored? How many country club
memberships, junkets to Hawaii, hookers, dinners, and luxury cars have
they bought and paid for? That's what makes for a successful contract
award, not some stupid nonsensical security classification.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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, 08 Sep 2000 04:20:50 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p7g5i$g3m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >
> > > 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;
> > > >> [...]
> > > >> >So you don't understand the complexities of supporting 6 different
> OS's,
> > > >the
> > > >> >costs involved, and how much work that would be with today's
> > > >applications?
> > > >>
> > > >> No, I don't *care* about the complexities and work involved,
because
> I
> > > >> don't have to do it. I'm more than prepared to pay for someone to
do
> > > >> it, if necessary, *in a competitive market*. Competition is
supposed
> to
> > > >> be really hard; its how we keep things efficient.
> > > >
> > > >Okay... how about this scenario: What if the price of every piece of
> > > >software you bought increased by a factor of ~ 5, because it had to
be
> > > >ported to 5 other OSes?
> > >
> > > OK. If it *had* to be, it *had* to be. What's the problem? In a
> > > competitive market, it would already probably be 1/5th the cost, but
> > > we'll ignore that. If its expensive, its expensive. What's the beef?
> >
> > Reduction of revenue.
> >
> > > >So... for example, Half Life would cost $250 a copy.
> > > >
> > > >Would you buy it?
> > > >
> > > >Probably not.
> > >
> > > No, I didn't buy it at $50, either. I'll wait till my brother gets
> > > bored with it, and use his.
> >
> > Pirate. Read the confirmed legal license agreemnet. It's
> non-transferable.
>
> In that case how do the computer store get away with buying back preowned
> games often without all the original materials and then reselling them as
> preowned or preplayed games? Are they all pirated goods as well, if so
how
> do they avoid the notice of the SPA?
>
I haven't seen any used 'Computer game' for quite awhile, though I do see
alot of used console games.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 00:21:47 -0400
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yLZt5.126$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8p92ne$c3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > So! You NOW admit that
> > Microsoft has failed to permit the purchasers of their original version
of
> > Windows 95 to the latter upgrade versions of the OS permitting upgrade
> ONLY
> > through purchase of news prebuilt computers systems that came with the
> newer
> > versions of Windows 95 bundled in.
>
> What's to "admit". It's common knowledge that you couldn't upgrade to
> certain features without buying a new computer. 99% of the rest of the
> features were available as downloads to upgrade an original Win95 machine.
>
> The things you couldn't get without buying new hardware was USB support
and
> FAT32.
That's true, MS never sold Win95b outright. It HAD to come with a hardware
purchase.
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 04:26:32 GMT
In article <8p9nmt$ipa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > Bruce Ediger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8p84kt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D. Spider) wrote:
> > > > >No, MS told the world that. MDI is a much better way of doing
> > > > >things in *certain applications.* Why do people have so much
> > > > >trouble understanding that different problems have different
> > > > >optimal solutions?
> > > >
> > > > I guess it's just really, really hard to imagine which certain
> > > > application(s) that MDI might be optimal.
> > > >
> > > > You know that old saying about how every problem looks like a
> > > > nail if your only tool is a hammer? Well, if MDI is your
> > > > hammer, every problem looks like your thumb.
> > >
> > > Since when was MDI the only style of Windows programs available?
> > > Which you hammer story woulds seem that you are suggesting.
> >
> > I never did see your "reason" for MDI. I'm interested...
> >
>
> I was just waiting to see if anyone in this thread has any memory of
> the real reasons, so far all I have seen is two corny and childish
> replies. I was hoping for a serious reply, but perhaps that is too
> much to hope for, you are right I will not write and then post it.
I'd guess it was done at least in part to avoid a lawsuit from Apple.
Many of Microsoft's interface decisions over the years look like they
were made on this basis, which is part of the reason Windows gets so
much wrong; Apple got things right, Microsoft insisted on stealing
things, but had to settle for a less-than-optimal solution to avoid
harassment by Apple lawyers.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 23:45:36 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p9nms$ipa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well if you have not been following several different threads, my
statement
> and the reason for it might not be clear.
>
> 1. It has been stated that Microsoft has issued quarterly update for
> Windows since Window 95 first came out in the form of free service packs.
I
> estimate that if that statement was correct, there would be 12 quarterly
> service pack for Windows 95. So I asked where I could locate those 12
> service packs to upgrade my Window 95 Retail to the most recent version of
> Windows 95. I never recieved any reply to my request. In spite of that
> failure to respond to my request, the claims continued
Service pack 1 exists. IE 1 was the internet service pack. IE2 was an
upgrade to that. IE3 was another service pack, plus there was IE3.01 and
3.02. IE4 was another service pack. Then there was IE4 SP1 and IE4 SP2,
then came IE4.01 and then IE5 and IE5.5. That's 12 so far. Then there was
DirectX 1-7 (18 so far, there was no DX4), Then there was DCOM98 service
pack, the OpenGL service pack (Windows 95 didn't ship with OpenGL, it was
added later). (20 so far), then there was MediaPlayer 1 and 2, then Media
Player 7.
That's 23 service packs off the top of my head, and there were more. Each
of these were upgrades to existing Win95 installations that came with later
versions of the OS.
> 2. Some one stated that it would not be possible to aquire latter
versions
> of Windows 95 without having to purchase a prebuilt computer that included
a
> preloaded or otherwise bundled copy of Windows 95. This was refuted by
> many.
It's not credibly refuted by anyone. There were 2 version of Win95 retail.
The second version came much later with SR1 and IE4. You could not get
FAT32 or USB support without buying a new computer.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Metcalfe on Linux
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 04:22:31 GMT
In article <8p9560$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Marshall Price) wrote:
> Bob Metcalfe, a columnist at www.infoworld.com who's resigning soon
The term "forced retirement" comes to mind....
> and one of the leading figures in Internet history -- said on "The
Diane
> Rehm Show" recently that Linux "doesn't do much" besides running
Internet
> servers on PC's, if I heard correctly.
Well if that's all it does, then MSFT has nothing to worry about, and
they can drop all this dot-net nonsense and get on with the real
business of running DOS applications like they've always done.
> I've spent many long and frustrating hours trying to figure out what
> Linux is all about, and might have gone on indefinitely if I hadn't
heard
> this bit of information.
> Is it true?
No.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 00:25:27 -0400
Quantum Leaper wrote:
>
>
> Vikings, Romans, Nazis and Crusades need I go on? Maybe learning your
> European history may help. The Europeans killed more native americans in
> the first 100 years, than the USA ever did. It wasn't though war but
> though disease. More than half of the population for the americas were
> wiped out though European diseases.
> 'Nam was started by the French. The Nazis killed more people than the USA
> ever did, in any single war.
Hell, the Nazis killed more people than the US military has killed in
all wars combined.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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, 08 Sep 2000 00:26:42 -0400
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8p92ng$c3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:4%Ht5.6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Spoken like someone that has never written a line of code in his life.
> > You
> > > can't just "take out" fundamental architectural changes to software.
> This
> > > is similar to a judge ordering that the basement be removed from 100
> story
> > > skyscraper.
> > >
> > > It's easy to just say "The architects and construction company put in in
> > > there, they can easily take it out".
> >
> > Have you considered RCS, SCCS, CVS, et al?
>
> Have you considered that rolling back to a previous version was not allowed?
>
> The judge specifically forbade MS from offering previous versions, claiming
> them obsolete. MS would have had to completely rewrite existing components
> to remove any trace of IE while maintaining the new features they offered
> (many of which were provided by IE, such as HTML Help).
>
> That's not something you can just roll back.
A position which they placed themselves in.
--
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.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
