Linux-Advocacy Digest #33, Volume #29 Sun, 10 Sep 00 00:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Simon Cooke")
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years ("Mike")
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?) ("Simon
Cooke")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?) ("Simon
Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...?
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...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 13:24:10 +1000
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> A SERFer wrote:
> >
> > lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >I haven't tried to access the BIOS in Linux, I haven't had too. But if
> > >that turns out to be possible, it is a new big security hole. I'll have
> > >to research that one.
> >
> > I think you misunderstand - when you do 'bios' calls (like in old
> > MS-DOS programming) under NT or a DOS emulator on Linux, this is
> > *virtualized* - you don't get to see real hardware or memory.
> > Its not a security hole.
> Just today I saw an article about security holes in DOSEMU shipped with
> some versions of Linux. On Slashdot, I think. But I don't run DOSEMU so
> I let it pass by.
The difference is DOSEMU often (it must, IIRC, for the full featureset) runs
setuid root. As such, it has no security and can access whatever it wants.
> But the point is the memory space occupied by the BIOS
> can be accessed.
Only by the kernel, and kernel mode code, in a decent OS.
> I don't know of any reason why it would *have* to be
> accessed after boot under Linux, but I don't know of anything that
> absolutely prohibits access either.
Hardware abstraction (at least on NT).
> root can do most anything.
Yes, that's "bad".
> MS
> products, OTH, permit "trusted" applications to access the memory space.
They do ? Which ones ? Evidence ?
> You and I aren't suppose to be able to do so, but, with sufficient
> effort, we can.
Provide a shred of evidence to support your claims.
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 20:26:43 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Why don't you write a better system to help everyone out?
>
> Because I don't write software, maybe.
Which puts you in a great position to argue about software development
practices. Give it up.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 20:28:30 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[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;
> >> >Sorry, but that's complete bullshit. There was never a requirement for
MS
> >to
> >> >ship Sun's JVM.
> >>
> >> Sorry, but that's a small mistake. It is Sun's _JNI_ (Java Native
> >> Interface), not their 'JVM' (Java Virtual Machine), that Microsoft was
> >> explicitly required to include and did not, to prevent cross-platform
> >> functionality. Like it matter.
> >
> >Your attitude towards accuracy in debate says it all Max. You definitely
> >*are* a moron.
>
> Tell me, Simon. What difference *within this discussion*, do you think
> it makes? Considering it is entirely irrelevant what a JNI or a JVM do,
> but merely that one of them was required to be included by contract and
> Microsoft DIDN'T, I wonder why you feel this is a matter of any
> importance.
Because if you're happy enough to be factually INCORRECT with this, how do
we know that you're basing your arguments on corroborated facts rather than
your own hallucinations?
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 20:29:06 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> That's why the first time I heard how huge W2K had grown, I knew it
> would never be worth a shit. I can't believe anyone thinks its a usable
> product.
Perhaps because they use it every day, and it's rock solid stable?
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 20:34:06 -0700
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> OK NT when it BSODs. Explorer.exe when it performs an illegal operation
> (about twice a week for me). MSWord. Netscape. For some reason, I can
> kill Netscape and it sometimes leaves a zombie running that doesn't
> register in task manager.
Have you tried getting it to crash in SafeMode? You should consider checking
your video drivers, or running in standard SVGA only.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Sun, 10 Sep 2000 03:42:14 GMT
"The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I'm also familiar with a few methods of window management; the one I
> liked best was actually not an X desktop at all, but an old Apollo
> DOMAIN system, running Aegis. (Yes, it's dead. Sigh.)
> The 'DM' (Display Manager), as they called it, had a command
> window that could be used to type in commands such as
> 'cp' (create process), 'es' (enter string), 'en' (enter RETURN),
> 'xc' (copy or cut, I forget which), and 'xp' (paste).
> It also had 5 preset window slots; a newly created window would
> be guaranteed to appear in one of those slots. Key bindings are
> definable to execute a sequence of commands, not unlike Athena
> translation sequences, but a little more understandable.
> (I don't know if I want to steal all of the control keys, though.
> Maybe if there's a property on the window...I'll have to think about it.)
We've discussed this before, some time last year, as I recall: I miss the
Apollo too.
Shortly after our HP/Apollo boxen were converted to Unix, most of us went
looking for something like an Apollo interface we could use. One of our
customers had the same depressing experience, and found a company that had
produced an Apollo style interface. I never saw this, but one of the
engineers I work with had, and swore up and down that it looked quite
similar, and had implemented most of the Apollo command set, the macro
language, and the really, really, totally amazing command buffer. Actually,
the amazing part is that nothing like that Apollo command buffer has ever
been implemented in Unix.
But even more amazing is that the Apollo command line interface was so damn
useful, and so remarkably usable. I could program the function keys. I could
program the mouse buttons. I could write shell scripts, without having to
learn new languages (I regularly wrote shell scripts that were over 1000
lines long - they were easy to write and easy to troubleshoot). It had a
_functional_ help system (and it was simply called, "help"). Typing
something as simple as "help dm commands" produced a list of all the display
manager commands. Amazing, but true. Then, typing "help shell commands"
produced a list of all the shell commands! Typing "help" all by itself
produced general information, including the two afformentioned commands.
Wildcards were genuinely useful, and worked the same everywhere! And, Aegis
actually had useful links! You could create them easily! And copy them! And
delete them! There were actual commands to do these things!
It was the closest I've come to command line nirvana.
And we haven't even touched on the networking. While Sun was touting, "the
network is the computer," everyone I knew at companies that used Sun were
trying to get their Suns off the network, because it slowed everything down
so much. They took the software off the servers Sun had sold them, and put
it on the local machines, because the startup times were reduced by factors
of 3 or more. Meanwhile, on the Domain Token Ring, we loaded all our
software off the network file servers, and could never tell the difference
between the network and our local disks. Even better, every computer's disk
was accessible on the network without creating any additional links or
anything else.
I had to reboot my Sun last week because of a "stale NFS file handle." I'd
give anything to be able to implement the old Domain Token Ring, and never
see that problem again...
Alas, you're right: Aegis is dead (sigh).
The real question is, if you were to implement the Aegis interface in Unix,
do you think the Unix cognescenti would like it? I think they've grown so
used to the sorry state of affairs in Unix shells, that you'd be run out of
Dodge if you produced something that was as intelligently designed and
implemented as Aegis. You and I might be the only users (and you'll be the
only author - I've long since run out of time to work on something like
this).
But, it would be amazing. And it would be good. And it would be so
un-Unix-like that you would be reviled by almost everyone (as much because
it would be so damn easy to use as anything else, I expect). I wish you
luck, and hope your endeavor leads to enlightenment of the teeming millions.
-- Mike --
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 20:41:39 -0700
"lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I was just quoting where the 40,000,000 number came from. It was all the
> users who eventualy merged into what we know as the "internet" today.
> The number wasn't made up from thin air, but has some foundation in
> fact. Because the number does have some foundation it is fair to say
> "40,000,000 Windows 3.1 users using trumpet winsock and Mosaic or
> Netscape". They just weren't necessarily connected to the "internet" as
> it defined today, but the "intercommunications networks" as they existed
> then.
Which weren't using TCP/IP -- FIDONET is a Z/X/YModem based system, for
example. Compuserve & AOL were proprietary systems that only started
switching over to the Internet around early 1996 (IIRC); until that point,
they had mail gateways, but that was it.
Trumpet provides TCP/IP connectivity; ergo that claim must refer to internet
users.
Simon
------------------------------
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: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 23:48:04 -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;
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
>> [...]
>> >I know I am not lying. You know I have not lied. So please abstain from
>> >emitting opinion on my honesty.
>>
>> Nobody said you were lying, Roberto. Just being dishonest.
>
>Unlike you, who fit both terms.
[...]
BOOOORing
*BLONK*
--
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: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 20:42:55 -0700
"Jim Richardson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >At the time that Novell acquired USL, Novell and MS were barely on
speaking
> >terms. Novell refused to support NT with a working client, so MS
eventually
> >was forced to reverse engineer the client and build a much less
functional
> >one into NT. This infuriated Novell even more, causing Novell to release
> >sub-standard clients for NT which they blamed on MS in order to alienate
> >pontential NT customers from buying NT (since most companies had large
> >quantities of Novell servers).
>
> Interesting question, since M$ forbids others from reverse enginneering
their
> stuff, weren't they being just a little hypocritical?
Actually, if I've got my history correct, M$ licensed the client -- they
didn't reverse engineer it.
Simon
------------------------------
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: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 23:53:27 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Please explain to me why, if a componentized browser architecture is so
>bad,
>> >Netscape 6 has gone to a completely componentized version (that is
>already
>> >being used in at least one 3rd party browser, kmeleon). And guess what
>> >else? It's based on COM. Not COM itself, but what they call a cross
>> >platform COM (or XPCOM) that is virtually identical to COM in most ways.
>>
>> And guess what else? There's still a monopoly, which means whatever way
>> the monopoly does it is a 'good idea'.
>>
>> COM sucks, 'componentized' applications suck, but I think you'll find
>> that if you pay attention to what I'm saying, you'll see that there's a
>> lot that sucks. None of it sucks worse than Microsoft software, but
>> just about all of it sucks a little.
>>
>> Componentized is a great idea. For developers. For operational
>> functionality; it sucks. Shared libraries don't suck (much).
>> Componentized applications do.
>
>All said without a single iota of information to support your position.
>
>Most of the industry disagrees with you.
You may not have noticed, but 'the industry' are mostly the developers.
--
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: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 23:55:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Wrong.
>> >Your allowed to agree to the EULA or not. That's it. If you don't agree
>you
>> >don't get to use the software.
>>
>> Tell that to Lasercomb America. They'll be happy to hear it.
>>
>> http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html
>>
>> The question, BTW, 'J', is on what the EULA says, not whether you have
>> to agree to it to legally own your copy of the software product.
>
>Actually, if you legally purchase a piece of software, you legally own it
>regardless of the EULA (Own here means to own a copy of the liscense and
>media upon which the software has been placed). Whether or not you have the
>right to USE that software is an entirely different matter and is what the
>EULA is all about.
You're playing games, not contributing to the discussion. No, I didn't
expect anyone would be so *moronic* that they thought they'd roll back
time to before computers were invented, so that they could
discombobulate the phrase "purchase a piece of software".
Stop being a pedantic ass. "Purchase a piece of software" means to buy
a box with 'software' in it, without any whining and bullshit about what
'software' is to begin with. These days, you get a CD and a trade
secret license. 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]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 19:43:46 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:bHlu5.21810$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I know my local Babbages and EB at Woodfield mall (near Chicago) both
don't
> sell used computer games, since I have been to both in the last week. I
> guess they sell different stuff at different stores...
Yes, just like pricing. I know of three EB's that have for about a decade
been one dollar off in prices from each other on all products. Say one has
an item at $19.99, the other has the same item at $21.99, and the third has
the same item at $18.99. But about four years ago the, primary competitor
for the lowest price branch closed down and that branch's prices came
in-line with the middle priced one.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 20:24:36 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >> 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.
> >
> >The two surviving companies that I know of that are doing this are
> >Electronics Boutique and Babbage's
>
> You mean EB rents games? I've never heard of that. Around here, you
> can rent console games at Blockbuster, but renting out software
> (including console cartridges) is illegal unless you have a special
> license, and you know they aren't cheap.
No, not under that name. They buy back "preowned" games and sell them out
again as preowned games. For example they buy back a game that sold for
whatever the new price was. They pay a very reduced price for it, and sell
it to the public for somewhere between the new price and the price they paid
for it.
My early message was reguarding computer stores selling preowned software.
A person that stated that software can not be transfered by software
consumers and that software so transfered would be pirated. So, I asked
that person; if that is so, how can chain software stores purchase and
resell used software, often called "preowned".
------------------------------
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: Sat, 09 Sep 2000 23:56:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Why don't you write a better system to help everyone out?
>>
>> Because I don't write software, maybe.
>
>Which puts you in a great position to argue about software development
>practices. Give it up.
I've never argued about software development practices. Get a grip.
--
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, 10 Sep 2000 00:01:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> How long is it gonna take before you learn how to *think*? No, there
>> was no court that ever "agreed it was OK to integrate the browser".
>> They said it wasn't a prima facia violation of the consent decree, and
>> nothing more.
>
>They also published a rather long winded set of comments which defined the
>criteria of acceptable integration, which included showing a valid benefit.
No they didn't. Apparently what they did 'publish' was a bit too
long-winded for you to read through completely. What they did was show
that 'a benefit to the consumer' might well be considered 'the fact they
didn't have to buy CDs', and they were quite clear in recognizing that
this is the only possible issue, since MS could, in fact, have provided
the exact same end result by selling two different CDs. They showed
this, that no real benefit is necessary in order for their to be a
theoretical benefit, in order to point out to Judge Jackson, whom they
knew would oversee the inevitable anti-trust trial, that the per se
'technical tying' rule would not be sufficient to show restraint of
trade in software products, by their reading of the Supreme Court
precedent.
The 'valid benefit' they ended up with for welding IE into Windows was
that only Microsoft could do so, and it saves one CD and one
installation program execution. Boom: 'value to the consumer'. It
sounds ludicrous, like they didn't have a clue, but in fact it was
legally precise and correct in reasoning. The 'benefit to the consumer'
stuff doesn't work with software. The question is 'restraint of trade',
not 'can we think of some pretense as an excuse?' Get 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: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 9 Sep 2000 21:00:30 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >Why don't you write a better system to help everyone out?
> >>
> >> Because I don't write software, maybe.
> >
> >Which puts you in a great position to argue about software development
> >practices. Give it up.
>
> I've never argued about software development practices. Get a grip.
Yes you have:
I quote:
">> COM sucks, 'componentized' applications suck, but I think you'll find
>> that if you pay attention to what I'm saying, you'll see that there's a
>> lot that sucks. None of it sucks worse than Microsoft software, but
>> just about all of it sucks a little.
>>
>> Componentized is a great idea. For developers. For operational
>> functionality; it sucks. Shared libraries don't suck (much).
>> Componentized applications do."
I can quote more if you'd like? HTML Help being one example, the use of
embedded browser rendering surfaces being another.
Simon
------------------------------
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, 10 Sep 2000 00:09:43 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>The quicken 2000 and 2001 user interface is entirely written in HTML.[...]
I don't CARE! It doesn't MEAN anything. This is *after the monopoly*.
It doesn't MATTER what the ISV's do now, in order to maintain their
markets (as long, of course, as its precisely what Microsoft wants them
to do.)
Go away; you're annoying. NO, Microsoft software does not fail to be
crap because 'Quicken 2000' has a user interface is "entirely written in
HTML". All that means is that I'd never consider using Quicken 2000. I
don't go in for such nightmarishly and pathetically inefficient
mechanisms. Web browsers make halfway decent web browsers; they make
really shitty application interfaces.
This is the kind of stuff that makes people like Erik so horribly
draining. The whole thing is so disfunctional after fifteen years of
monopoly that people actually can't tell a good idea from a stupid one.
--
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, 10 Sep 2000 00:10:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[...]
>Because if you're happy enough to be factually INCORRECT with this, how do
>we know that you're basing your arguments on corroborated facts rather than
>your own hallucinations?
Everything else I've said, and nothing more. Get 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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
