Linux-Advocacy Digest #990, Volume #28 Fri, 8 Sep 00 02:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: what's up with Sun? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...?
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: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds this just
a little scary? ("Anthony D. Tribelli")
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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 08 Sep 2000 01:36:39 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Yes, but I'm getting tired of being questioned constantly by you.
>Then you have the options of not responding.
>
>> I'm sure you can answer SOME questions by yourself. Nothing
>> personal, but really, this sort of police interrogation is
>> not worth the effort.
>
>By the way, SOME of the questions have been either to confirm what I already
>knew as well as test your integrity and credibility. Which has caused me to
>dig all the more at times when you were, shall we say, less than
>forthcomming.
>
>Such as you have been in reguards to the connections between KDE.org and the
>KDE Project. I am certain that you know there is another connection that
>you have not yet admitted to. Hint, does the KDE project gain any service
>not yet stated in this thread from KDE.org?
Hmmm. The situation gets intriguing, again. Forget what I said in my
last post. Roberto, you don't *have* to answer his questions, or even
respond, you know. I'll mention, just for formalities sake, that if
you're going to respond at all, you ought to try to answer his
questions, as anything you say could be held against KDE in the court of
public 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! ======
------------------------------
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, 08 Sep 2000 01:40:19 -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:
[...]
>> >Ok, but you do realize that as long as you just define things to mean
>> >whatever they want, you can say anything is true, right?
>>
>> No, I don't realize that, I don't even agree with it. Its post-modern
>> claptrap. I am not defining, nor re-defining, what 'commercial' means.
>> I'm telling you what I would consider merits the term 'commercial
>> enterprise' within the discussion we're having. Feel free to argue
>> against it, but save your 'dictionary quibbling' for the after-hours
>> crowd.
>
>Oh, so to avoid postmodernism's 'everyone can define', ONLY YOU
>can define now. What an ass.
What are you talking about? I never said ONLY I can define now,
whatever that means. I told you this discussion was beyond you.
>Hey, I'll repeat my offer: tell me what you mean by "commercial
>enterprise"and I may even agree that according to that definition
>KDE is one.
A ruse to encourage people to put themselves in a position where they
will want to pay Troll Tech money. Would KDE satisfy that particular
definition of 'commercial' that I'm using right now?
>However: notice that your definition of commercial enterprises
>must allow for a group of unpaid volunteers that write code in
>their free time and give it away.
Sure, I never said they got paid to do it. But since several of them
are TT employees, they do make money on it.
So what is that 'additional service' that 'mjcr' was asking about?
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 01:41:09 -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:
>> >> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> >> [...]
>> >> >> You have too narrow a perspective on things that allow you
>> >> >> to feel comfortable selling future for the sake of a little
>> >> >> convenience.
>> >> >
>> >> >I do what I do based on what I know and believe. You do what you
>> >> >do based on what you know and believe. Do so and let me do so.
>> >>
>> >> I don't want to gang up on Roberto with Jedi; that's not what I'm trying
>> >> to do.
>> >
>> >Then don't do it.
>>
>> I didn't, you moron. That was the point of the statement.
>
>Looks like you failed.
Awh, did we huwt youh widdle feelings? :-(
--
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: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.hardware
Subject: Re: what's up with Sun?
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 01:42:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Andrew N. McGuire in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Thu, 7 Sep 2000, T. Max Devlin quoth:
[...]
>~~ Ooh-rah.
>
>Marine?
Navy, Triple Threat Company, NRTC Great Lakes. Choir.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.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 22:37:50 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:COZt5.18110$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> I haven't seen any used 'Computer game' for quite awhile, though I do see
> alot of used console games.
In this area there are three chain computer stores (it does appear as though
on is currently taking over another so we may soon have only two) that
specialize in computer games and also sell game consoles. They each have
used computer games, sometimes boxed sometime with only CD in jewel boxes.
They also have signs promoting the buy back of games. The new computer game
boxes come stickers with slogans like "played it? Trade it!" I for one
won't buy a used game, if for no other reason, why buy someone else's lemon,
because the stores have also restocked returned merchandise that is in an
otherwise unsaleable condition as preowned. And I would prefer getting
everything that comes with the game. If I think it is too expensive new, I
would wait for its price to come down, or for special deals or situations.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 01:46:54 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said lyttlec in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>IIRC from about 1972- (early) 1974 a group of speculators got control of
>copper distribution worldwide. [...]
>I'll have to read the history books again, if I
>can find a non revisionist one.
I don't believe there is such a thing; you cannot describe the past
without revising the history. The trick is to read several
non-revisionist ones, and try to triangulate the truth by asking "why
would it have been sensible to do something that could be described that
way by someone who didn't understand it?"
[...]
>But "agrabusiness" only wants to
>plant the short term most profitable crop.
I enjoyed all of your comments; thanks for posting them. I just haven't
much to say about them, which is a little disappointing, to be honest.
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: 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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 01:50:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>While talking about monopolist let us not forget about DeBeers.
How can you forget about DeBeers. But the 'production monopoly' and
even 'distribution monopoly', while problems, are not what I'm concerned
about, at least. The *market* monopolies which engulf our society, like
Microsoft, are fundamentally grounded on intellectual property, so they
are not limited by the kinds of anti-trust enforcement that stopped the
1970s copper monopoly, and would stop DeBeers if anyone could pin a
prosecution on them.
--
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 01:56:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Ermine Todd in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>He didn't. ALL that he did was remove a small piece of it so that
>iexplore.exe wasn't there - but even with this gone, it was trivial to still
>get to the Internet and perform all the same actions. The NETWORKING,
>TCP/IP, SOCKETS elements are essential elements to the OS and without these,
>the OS won't run.
But all these were a part of the *OS*, not IE, before the integration.
So why wouldn't Microsoft have been able to remove IE without removing
them? Its the *functionality* which needs to be removed, and this
entails removing the code for IE and much of the rest (but NOT any of
the actual 'network stack' which you described.)
All this 'remove' nonsense is what does it. What it really means is
're-write the product as two non-integrated products', and in delivery,
these could be just as seamlessly 'integrate' as if they were together
all along. This was the lesson, I think, that the Appellate Court was
trying to teach when they went beyond the Consent Decree to discuss
anti-trust ramifications of the issue, and warn Jackson (or whoever
judged the trial) away from a per se technical tying test, because it
doesn't work with software.
Jackson never once indicated any desire or power to tell Microsoft how
to write their software. Only how to sell their products.
--
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 02:02:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Your ass = product without IE
>> Hole in the ground = program which doesn't run
>>
>> When you've learned the difference, try again.
>
>Do you know anything about software development, Mr. Devlin? NO. YOU DON'T.
In point of fact, I do.
>Until recent releases of Gecko, there was and has been no other
>componentized solution for software developers to use for an HTML rendering
>surface. Ergo, developers used IE.
You're not going to point out the benefits of the monopoly's product by
pointing to a lack of competition.
>Removing IE breaks the apps which DON'T RUN AFTER IT IS REMOVED.
>
>Do you have a clue?
So don't remove the parts that break the apps; just everything else.
And don't feed me a line of BULLSHIT that this would be the whole of IE.
I don't write software for a living, but I'm not stupid. If the apps
need some part of IE, then obviously they should be labeled "Only for
use with the Win98 with integrated IE platform." Of course, any
consumers who purchased the Win98 without IE would be free to install
IE, and that should provide precisely the same system, shouldn't it?
You're not saying Microsoft doesn't know how to update DLLs when you
install a product, are you?
(Yes, I know I'm fantasizing, but that's the point. The fact that
Microsoft doesn't, in fact, know how to update DLLs when you install a
product, correctly, has nothing to do with my argument.)
--
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: "Anthony D. Tribelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: SmartShip needs multiple platforms (Was: Am I the only one that finds
this just a little scary?
Date: 8 Sep 2000 06:00:23 GMT
Perry Pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> Three *consective* paragraphs directly quoted from the article:
>From an article later referred to by it's own publisher as early
speculation.
>>> Ron Redman, deputy technical director of the Fleet Introduction
>>> Division of the Aegis Program Executive Office, said there have been
>>> numerous software failures associated with NT aboard the Yorktown.
What is meant by "associated"? That WinNT itself failed or that a system
that happened to use WinNT failed? Naive server and client apps that
control equipment can stop a ship regardless of OS.
>>> "Refining that is an ongoing process," Redman said. "Unix is a better
>>> system for control of equipment and machinery, whereas NT is a better
>>> system for the transfer of information and data. NT has never been
>>> fully refined and there are times when we have had shutdowns that
>>> resulted from NT."
What "shutdown"? How was the ship affected, if at all?
>>> The Yorktown has been towed into port several times because of the
>>> systems failures, he said.
"Systems failures"? Was the OS responsible or not? Was the OS even
involved? The one incident that was described shows that blaming WinNT
was premature.
> [yawn]
Agreed, but the above questions remain unresolved.
>>>>General purpose computers for non-essential tasks are fine, with rare
>>>>exceptions for things like a database or server. Defintely not for the
>>>>primary control or monitoring of equipment, local or remote.
>>>
>>> So then provide a URL to what you think they should use (hardware and
>>> software) to develop custom GUI screens for the command and control of
>>> machinery.
>>
>>Prototype, develop, test, iterate as necessary, ... on whatever you care
>>to. I refer to final implemenation that goes aboard operational ships
>>only.
>
> Translation: you don't have a workable COTS solution for
> GUI screens for the command and control of machinery.
Poor translations on your part. You complained of the difficulty of doing
a GUI under something like VxWorks, I pointed out that a handheld consumer
device was able do just that. You then complain about the difficulty of
developing GUI screens under such an environment, I point out that screen
don't need to be, and probably should not be, developed under such an
environment. You ask for a COTS solution for the final implementation, but
we don't know what needs to be implemented. Again, I speak of the
local/remote control/monitoring stations, not the higher level analysis
stations.
>>While space is a more hostile environment to operate within, I think
>>having to deal with combat is a greater burden.
>
> Do you have *any* experience specifying systems for either? Do you
> have *any* experience with mil-specs at all?? Spacecraft systems use
> many of the same mil-spec components used for combat systems ...
I argued for simpler more rugged more repairable equipment than general
purpose computers. You mention general purpose computers being used in
manned space missions as evidence of their acceptibility. I point out that
spacecraft have more severe size and weight limitations, you ignore this.
I point out that spacecraft are assembled, maintained, and crewed by much
more capable and skilled individuals, you ignore this. You falsely assume
that because such equipment is the best solution for spacecraft it is the
best solution for warships, ignoring the fact that these two types of
craft have very different parameters and ability to make tradeoffs.
> ... with
> additional requirements for the harsh environment of space. This
> includes tolerances for shock and vibration. You have only a few
> additional requirements for shipboard systems such as resistance to
> salty air. My point is you can get COTS products that meet all
> applicable mil-specs, and their is no reason for a 'custom
> solution'. You can get highly reliable, easy to repair shipbaord
> mil-spec VME boards with x86, Sparc, or PPC processors. On those you
> can run NT/Linux/Solaris, Solaris/Linux, and VxWorks/Linux
> respectively. So you choose an OS based on the suitability and
> reliability of the OS for the specific applications you need.
Good, you're getting very close to what I suggested in the first place. To
refresh your recollection here's my early statement that you objected to:
Such consoles (remote terminals and LAN consoles from original
article do not need to be general purpose computers running general
purpose operating systems with applications on a hard drive. I would
favor hot pluggable CPU boards with applications in ROM.
Using specialized processor boards in a VME backplane, with software
supplied from ROM or a network connection, is what I consider a "custom
solution".
>>>>A consumer device managing a GUI does suggest that the Navy might be able
>>>>to come up with one also.
>>>
>>> From the VxWorks 5.4 Programmers manual, chapter 1.3
>>>
>>> "UNIX and Windows hosts are excellent systems for program development
>>> and for many interactive applications. However, they are not
>>> appropriate for real-time applications. On the other hand, traditional
>>> real-time operating systems provide poor environments for application
>>> development or for non-real-time components of an application, such as
>>> graphical user interfaces (GUIs)."
>>
>>Yet Sharp manages a GUI in a consumer device.
>
> How do you know how much they modified the VxWorks OS and libraries to
> make this work?? How do you know they haven't made it more of a general
> purpose OS just like Unix can be made more embedded?? Thus, what
> advantage do you gain using such a platform instead of a general
> purpose platform that is already *proven* to be reliable as such??
I would rather start from the small and build up as necessary and as
appropriate than start with the larger and possibly more complex and more
bloated. I don't accept it as a given that a full blown Unix is required
for local/remote control/monitoring stations. For these stations I am
arguing simplicity from the hardware to the software to the user
interface.
>>Again, I am only discussing the control/monitoring stations, not the
>>server/database side of things.
>
> You don't think multiuser security is needed for control/monitoring
> stations?? There are *alot* of sailors on board the ship!!
Security can be performed by the servers, which would be needed for remote
use of such a terminal. For local use it may be unneccessary and possibly
a bad idea. 'Local' sailors are already in physical proximity to the
equipment and the manual controls. Time needed for local authenticaion may
be better spent elsewhere in an emercency.
>>How many times need I write I am not discussing the server/database side
>>of things, or a secondary high level analysis station? Most of the above
>>is irrelevant for a primary control/monitoring station, local or remote.
>
> No it's not irrelevent. You need high level GUI screens for primary
> control/monitoring of complex systems like those on smartship. I'm
> talking about UI screens that schematically or functionally display
> the system components (valves, pumps, tanks, machinery, power feeders,
> breakers, xfmrs, etc. etc.) in a manner that shows how they
> interoperate. You click on a functional block in a high level diagram
> and a new window pops up with a schematic of that subsystem. Click on
> a valve and a dialog pops up to open, close, or adjust it. Click on a
> controlled sensor value and a dialog pops up to change it's
> setpoint. Right click on the sensor you spawn another application
> pulling up it's historical data. You've never seen custom GUI's for
> control of large engines or other complex mechanical/electrical
> systems, have you?? There are many packages on the market for
> developing them, most for Unix, some for NT, and none for VxWorks that
> I know of. If you have one for VxWorks, provide a URL. Otherwise, you
> are wrong.
Again, you merely speak of the convenience of implementation. The
appropriate user interface can be designed, prototyped, tested, reviewed,
iterate the proceeding as necessary ... on whatever the hell you feel
like. Then the necessary user interface can be implemented. Do your
packages come with source licenses, will code from X and other publically
available sources be usable? You have offered nothing suggesting that the
proper usable user interface can't be implemented on VxWorks. It may
merely be more convenient to implemmnt the very same user interface under
Unix or WinNT.
>>You are making things far more complex than they need to be.
>
> No, you are, by choosing the wrong tools to do the job, and by
> reengineering mil-specs. You obviously don't know what the *fuck* you
> are talking about.
Bad guess. You have shown yourself to be incorrect about "reengineering
mil-specs", you merely have a very different definition of what a "custom
solution" is. Over time you have drifted away from general purpose
computers and are now getting pretty close to what I was suggesting in the
first place. The only thing you are really disagreeing with me on is
whether something like a full blown Unix is a requirement for a
control/monitoring station, or whether something smaller like VxWorks can
handle the job.
Tony
==================
Tony Tribelli
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 02:03:19 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>OK... if that's the case, please detail how you take Netscape 4.7 and use
>its rendering surface in your own application window.
>
>ANSWER: You can't.
Well, we never said that Windows wasn't a monopoly.
[...]
>Really? Well, IE's the only app that provides this service.
Hence the felony conviction.
--
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 02:06:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Do you know anything about software development, Mr. Devlin? NO. YOU DON'T.
>>
>>Until recent releases of Gecko, there was and has been no other
>>componentized solution for software developers to use for an HTML rendering
>>surface. Ergo, developers used IE.
>>
>>Removing IE breaks the apps which DON'T RUN AFTER IT IS REMOVED.
>
>Simon, forget it. It's like trying to explain basic algebra - to a
>parakeet.
I always feel the need for a weary chuckle when the trolls run this
'don't bother' gag. I've seen others do it to trolls, as well, (done it
myself, of course) though not as often, lately, I'm happy to say.
The more often it happens, the funnier it gets.
--
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: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 02:08:06 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 13:46:01 -0400, Seán Ó Donnchadha wrote:
>>"Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Simon, forget it. It's like trying to explain basic algebra - to a
>>parakeet.
>
>Not quite. Parokeets are ignorant, but not arrogant. Max is both.
And this makes me different from everyone else... how?
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
