Linux-Advocacy Digest #4, Volume #29 Fri, 8 Sep 00 16:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Re: Computer and memory
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform (IE for Linux) (.)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Metcalfe on Linux (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Computer and memory (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Gtk+ is *L*GPL (Was: Qt goes GPL) (Mig)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop platform
Re: How low can they go...?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 19:09:31 GMT
On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 12:43:51 GMT, Joe R. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >
>> > On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 16:00:41 +0100, Stuart Fox
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >>
>> > >> It is the HIGHT OF ARROGANCE to consider that man has even a
>> > >> noticable
>> > >> impact on climate,
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >It is the height of arrogance to consider that we don't. It is
>> > >exactly this
>> > >arrogance that means we have such a problem with pollution now.
>> >
>> > What is arrogant is to think that we can destroy the planet.
>> > The planet and her ecosystem can heal itself.
>>
>> Spot the contradiction.
>>
>> That which is ***DESTROYED*** cannot heal itself.
>>
>
>Maybe you should read what he said.
"destroy the planet" usually does not mean what it implies
literally but rather the destruction of ecosystems. As
studies of any natural disaster will clearly show you, life
is a rather persistent sort of infestation. Nothing short of
us burning the crust of the earth off will likely do much to
slow down life on this planet.
We may end up being the equivalent of another "extinction
event", taking ourselves out in the process, but we will
likely be dead before life in general on this planet is past
the point of recovery.
Now, weather in general is one of those subjects that seems
to evade the human capacity for understanding. So, gauging
our influence on it is likely somewhat like voodoo.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [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 19:13:09 GMT
On Thu, 7 Sep 2000 23:53:00 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Christophe Ochal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8oMt5.977$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Where did that Atom bomb fall?
>
>Before you can address the use of the atomic bomb, you need to address the
>actions of the Japaneese that the use of the atomic bomb ended. Consider
>the events of December 7, 1941. Consider what the casulties on both sidea
>would have been if the invasion of the Japaneese home islands would have
>been required instead of the using of the bomb.
>
>Consider that if America had no produced the bomb first, how world history
>would have been different. What would have happened if America did not work
>on the bomb and either Imperial Japan or Nazi Germany had a working atomic
>bomb first? Consider the result of the atomic bomb as the payload of the
>working V2 rockets in the 1940's. Consider the use of the Nazi atomic bomb
>delivered by the amerika bomber.
Nevermind the fact that conventional bomb payloads for entire
bomber fleets were approaching the level of atomic weapons
anyways. The "glamour" of these two particular bombs seems to
allow people to just gloss over the rest of barbarity of all
sides involved in World War II.
"Total War" was not ushered in at Hiroshima.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
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, 08 Sep 2000 19:15:22 GMT
On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 06:54:04 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[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.
>
>So let's see.. because Netscape engineers were too incompetent to do this
>work themselves, Microsoft doing it makes them evil?
>
>Go away.
No. After Microsoft "cut off their air supply" they likely
didn't have the funding to continue. Besides, Netscape has
always been a cross platform product wider than the object
standards of a mere single vendor.
Now, where are those other nifty "embeddable components" that
everyone would want to use?
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform (IE for Linux)
Date: 8 Sep 2000 19:19:03 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I do hope MS port IE 5-5.5 to Linux (as they have to Solaris) i want a
> *real*
> browser in Linux not that piece of crap Nutscrape.
Spoken truly as someone who has never used IE under solaris.
Its far, far worse than 'nutscrape' on any platform.
abbie
------------------------------
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, 08 Sep 2000 19:19:26 GMT
On Fri, 08 Sep 2000 06:53:13 GMT, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[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.)
>
>Bit of an arbitrary decision... why leave RichEdit in there, and not an HTML
>display system? Why leave the networking code in there and not an HTTP
>client?
Networking is a system service that abstracts hardware and shared
resources. Like what an OS in general should be it's something that
other applications can be built on rather than an excuse to put a
particular applictions vendor out of business.
A basic editor is necessary for system administration and doesn't
serve to undermine the producers of seperate 3rd party products.
A slightly more than basic editor would be a bit shady, but not
quite so shady as to either eliminate entire market segments or
raise general suspicion.
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Metcalfe on Linux
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 19:28:42 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, John Arebir
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 08 Sep 2000 12:09:01 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>I have posted this before...and will again. This is a true real-world
>situation....
>
>Very few people posting to this group have real evidence of a REAL
>WORLD application to compare NT and Linux.
>
>Not me. I am in the middle of it all.
>
>Our company has a Linux based system comprised of 6 applications. Of
>course, we have a Win32 Client part to each of these apps that
>connects to our Linux box which does the real work. BTW: We could not
>sell this application without a Windows front end a few years ago,
>hence the Win9x/WinNT client side to our app.
>
>The Linux based system took 2 programmers 2 years to finish. That's 4
>man years. BTW. I am one of the two programmers.
>
>Our company was purchased at about the same time the buyer (now parent
>company) had an NT product ready to deploy. They have had 5
>programmers working for 5 years and they have ONE of the 6
>applications ready.
>That's 25 man years for 16% of a total (comparable) system.
>
>For up to 50 simultaneous users:
>We run our 6 Linux based applications on ONE PII 350 with 128Mb RAM.
>There ONE application requires 6 (yes SIX) NT servers to run.
>
>The MINIMUS REQUIREMENTS for EACH of the SIX servers:
>PIII 450 + 256Mb EACH.
>
>Guess what. The one NT product does not yet have all the features our
>(comparable) product has. The one thing that they had on one
>application over ours took me about two weeks to add to our product.
>
>Guess what else. The NT based product's install program contains as
>many lines of code as our TOTAL server side.
>
>Guess what else. Their support staff for their 20 clients is the same
>size as ours. We have been supporting over 150 clients for several
>years.
>
>Guess what else. Our profit margin has dropped from a nice 40% to a
>measly 20%. (Much of this is our cost for the NT Sever Licenses and
>hardware).
>
>This is the kicker, the NT-based system has had more down-time in EACH
>client than ALL of our 150 clients combined over 2 years. BTW: This
>system IS mission and time critical.
>
>So no one will EVER convince me that there is better performance, less
>down-time, lower cost of ownership in NT 4.0.
>
>BTW: Preliminary benchmarks have shown that Win2K does perform about
>30-40% better so we will might be able to drop one of the 6 servers
>out of our NT-mess.
No no, man, you fail to understand, you need to sniff these magic
mushrooms and then you'll agree completely that NT is the best
solution for all of your problems -- including the acquisition
of more magic mushrooms. :-)
(Magic Mushrooms 1.1 not compatible with Firewater 2.3-beta, which
may still be available in some areas. Requires Nose 2 protocol
support, usually provided by Nose 2.0-beta-X. Nose 1 protocol
support may not have been fully tested.
Should the user experience anything other than a mild euphoria
(for example, a Blue Face Of Death), simply boot user. Apart from
slight disorientation, nothing bad should happen.)
:-) :-) :-)
BTW, congratulations on your product and experience. I do wish that
there were fewer political obstacles to using freeware, but it may
be only a matter of time.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
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 19:30:21 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p9u92$o2m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:COZt5.18110$[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
What are the computers stores? Atleast in my area, NONE sell computer
games, I have been to just about all of them in my area. Also I have never
seen any store in the Chicago area buy/sell used computer games, though
alot of them sell console games. So it includes alot of the big computer
chain stores, like Best Buy and others.
> 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
I'm not saying they don't, I just wonder were they are, I still remember
when a local computer store used to rent games.
------------------------------
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 19:36:01 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pa5f5$v33$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "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.
>
> Now we are getting to some truth here, that proves that it was not
possible
> to really upgrade a Windows 95 Retail installation into latter stages of
the
> Windows 95 software.
>
USB support was useless unless your MB supported it. FAT32 support for free
would have been nice, but you could buy a legal copy of OSR2 (FAT32) if you
bought a new HD.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: 8 Sep 2000 19:38:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
:>
:>Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
:>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
:>
:>> This thread is kind of one of those that could have gone
:>> on for weeks and weeks if someone hadn't flubbed and
:>> brought up the no-no topic. Kind of makes me wonder why
:>> we are all in tech oriented groups, and talking about
:>> politics. Amazing where the conversations go.
:>
:> Yea, if this were fidonet we would all have gotten rewarded for a parts in
:>this discussion with the infamous 30-day vacations.
: Ah, for moderation.
: I still spend a little time on Slashdot. It's nice if
: you're feeling like you don't want to put up with the
: garbage to adjust your threshold. Of course, on slashdot,
: most of the moderators appear to be complete idiots and
: moderate based on opinion, rather than content. Perhaps
: we need automated moderation.
Slashdot really doesn't offer any alternative, however.
Take the infamous "+1, insightful" or "-1, flamebait" ratings.
Insightful to whom? Flamebait to whom? And then the
metamoderation phase reiterates the opinion aspect with its
"agree"/"disagree" checkboxes. The whole place generates
plenty of heat but very little light and I've found that no
amount of moderation tweaking has, or likely will, made any
difference.
Automated moderation, while desirable, isn't likely to be
feasible; computers are just too stupid for that. And
considering the web site is cobbled together in perl,
I have my doubts it'll get any sort of upgrade without a
complete overhaul.
As you might've noticed, I've seen quite a bit of Slashdot
and have come to dislike it more and more with time.
I'm not sure if it's the prevailing knee-jerk attitude or
the lack of any real "community" (contrast it to a site like:
http://elfwood.lysator.liu.se/ and see what I mean)
but I really don't care for it.
: Sorry for the off-topic rant (in an off-topic thread);-).
That's just normal for usenet. It keeps life interesting :)
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Gtk+ is *L*GPL (Was: Qt goes GPL)
Date: Fri, 8 Sep 2000 21:42:07 +0200
Perry Pip wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Sep 2000 23:35:22 +0200,
> Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Perry Pip wrote:
> >
> >> And not enough. You still can't develop closed source apps with Qt/KDE
> >> without paying sizable royalties to Troll Tech. With Gtk/Gnome you
> >> can. I can't blame the guys at Troll Tech for wanting to pay their
> >> bills, but others have to pay their bills as well, or have other
> >> reasons for not wanting to release source code.
> >
> >BS... so now you want to debate about what is better - LGPL or GPL??
>
> Excuse me, I'm just stating a factual difference that matters to some
> people.
No, youre basicly saying that a company that sells software should not have
to pay for the tools they use. Thats fine, but it the LGPL is used there
is no need for contribution. If the GPL is used then contributions are
"automaticcly" made and a developer can by buying a licence still make
closed source applications (remenber that the GPL is not the copyright
holder) - everybody is happy with the GPL.. with the LGPL thats different.
I can understand that a large system - lets say Linux itself - could not be
based on the GPL. It would simply be to complex for a company to find and
pay all copyright holders :-)
If KDE libs are LGPL'ed would someone releasing commercial software for
KDE and only linking directly to those libs still have to acquire a licence
from QT??
> >If you want to release closed source software then you better pay for the
> >tools you use.
> >
>
> If you use Qt/KDE yes. If you use Gtk/Gnome, no.
>
> I am working in an avionics lab for a large aerospace research
> project. For both intellectual property and security reasons, we are
> currently not releasing source code except to our subcontractors. Thus
> we can use LGPL'd but not GPL'd libraries. I think you find there are
> many other organizations that have some additional intellectual
> property to protect besides the software itself and thus can't release
> sources. You'd better believe Sun and HP took this into account in
> making their decision to standardize on Gtk/Gnome.
Are you sure of this?As i understand it then there is no need to release
any GPL code if the application is not distributed /sold. You could write
code for use at your company based on GPL code and not have to release any
code if the could was not distributed outside this entity.
But since you guys are doing money with it then its fair that you have to
pay for the tools you use. You would like these tools and the documentation
to be of the highest quality? Nobody ever picks on QT for quality reasons
but the same cannot be said of GTK+. Guess why.
> >And maybe when its a bit more stable.
>
> I find that my own apps using Gtk widgets and some Gnome Widgets are
> quite stable. I don't use the overall integreted Gnome Desktop.
Cant say anything thing about it since the only programmin i ever made with
GTK was no more than experiments.
I do use some GTK and Gnome apps and i find that these crash more than
applications based on KDE and QT (but lots of QT based still crash on me)
Cheers
------------------------------
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, 8 Sep 2000 10:55:02 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >
> > >> Yes, it was a perfect pretext to help in their neferious acitvities
of
> > >tying
> > >> non-OS services into the OS and thereby further locking in customer.
> > >
> > >Who are you to decide what belongs in an *APPLICATIONS PLATFORM* and
what
> > >doesn't?
> >
> > The customer.
>
> You don't get to decide what MS puts into their software. It's not your
> right. If it was your company...THEN you could decide but since you are
only
> the customer and have no decision making power within the Microsoft Corp.
> the only right you have is to buy it or not buy it. I guess it goes
without
> saying that you've still chosen to buy it.
A wise company will listen to the customer's concerns, it will never
consider any customer as being *only* a customer. Paraphrasing a founder of
a furtune 500 company: The customer is who makes the continuation of the
business possible, the customer is not a problem or a begger to be deat
with, serving the customer is the primary reason for any company to exist.
"The customer is always right". Does not mean the mean that the customer is
always right but only when he agrees with the directioon the company is
going. It also does not mean that the customer is always right only when he
has been sufficiently brainwashed by company propaganda.
------------------------------
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, 8 Sep 2000 11:04:26 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> > Winhelp may be many things, but a notoriously bloated and
> > crashprone piece of crap it was not. It's still not obvious
> > that there is infact a point in dumping it.
>
> To provide an excuse to integrate the web browser, obviously.
Jedi is correct here, the was no viable reason to dump winhelp fromm an
engineering point of view.
Max is also correct, it was done that way it was done as a monopolist
tactic.
------------------------------
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, 8 Sep 2000 11:34:41 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >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.
>
> Not anymore, we're not.
Me? I was *never* talking about that at all, I was always talking about the
original incident.
------------------------------
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, 8 Sep 2000 11:36:42 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >[...]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.
>
> Dude, get that prozac prescription refilled, would you please? That
> sentence ought to be taken out and shot.
No, I don't take any mindaltering medication. I agree that the sentence
does seem to be out of left field, but I have already addressed and
explained it.
------------------------------
From: <[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, 8 Sep 2000 11:55:27 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Paul 'Z' Ewande© <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pav1l$t5l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit dans le message news:
> 8p9s9v$8jt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> <SNIP> Hilarious post </SNIP>
>
> > See my reply to Erik on this issue within this thread, it applies to you
> > too.
>
> Hmmm, I think you missed the _heavy_ sarcasm, or I missed yours :)
No, you didn't miss mine since it never existed. What you read appears to
have been a over the top reaction trying to take the discussion off on a
tangent, to avoid the question of what was the real reason Microsoft
introduced the MDI.
------------------------------
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, 8 Sep 2000 11:41:18 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Zenin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> : Said Zenin in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> :>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> :>: Said Zenin in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> : [...]
> :> Half-Life multi-player isn't RPG, which is where the real fun is.
> :
> : I'm definitely not a big fan of multi-player games. Its an interesting
> : diversion for a little while, but its never kept my interest.
>
> Ah, ok, then you're right; HL probably isn't for you (well, maybe
> the single player, as it's kind of a strategy/puzzle game with a
> story then a RPG).
>
> Personally I lost intrest in challenging computers a long, long time
> ago. The games I play now really have to directly challenge other
> real people on a level playing field to hold any interest for me.
> Anyone can program a bot to beat you and "beating" them has no
> thrill for me. Beating another live player however, brings a real
> sense of competition.
>
> To each their own.
>
The problem is finding human opponents who will stick to the philosophy of
the game, and humans enough humans who believe in fair play, team work, and
that will not cheat.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
