Linux-Advocacy Digest #53, Volume #29 Mon, 11 Sep 00 14:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform (IE for Linux) (Brian Langenberger)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform (IE for Linux) (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Windows+Linux=True ("Nigel Feltham")
Re: The reason I don't care about the flame wars (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 17:54:57 +0100
"Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:oU7v5.319$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> kirjoitti
> viestissä:8pimoe$d8d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Free markets, by the way, are about *minimizing* costs, or rather,
> > > maximizing efficiency. Pisses the capitalists off, I know, but that's
> > > why they're 'capitalists' and not 'kings'.
> >
> > There is no such thing as the "free market" (except in theory). America
> > claims it to be so, while still operating one of the most protected
> markets
> > around....
>
> True, but what's your point? The theory is what the law is based on, isn't
> it?
Which is a bad idea in itself. The law should be based on reality, not an
abstraction.
> Just because the implementation is imperfect doesn't mean the theory is
> not relevant. In fact, the purpose of such theories is to help people gain
> understanding that allows them to improve on the status quo.
>
> Are you an American, most seem reluctant to admit that their right to free
> market isn't really working very well, while you go to the other extreme
and
> say that since it isn't working we should give up and let the companies do
> what they want.
>
New Zealander. I don't think we should let the companies do what they want
either - that would be an extraordinarily bad idea. There are companies far
more evil than Microsoft out there though, and I think wasting time on MS is
pointless. Why not go after the polluters, or the people who do serious
harm to the world we live in?
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 17:59:39 +0100
"Ville Niemi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:nU7v5.318$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> By your definition drug dealers are good people simply trying to make a
> living in a capitalist system. They too use unethical and illegal methods
to
> market products that are known to cause problems for people.
>
Some probably are. Why not include tobacco salesman in that, or perhaps
booze barons? Both products are known to cause (serious) harm or death.
How many people out there think what happened to MS was fair, yet still
smoke (illegal tactics, products that are proven to cause actual physical
harm)? Both involve choice on the part of the consumer, yet they still
choose to do it.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[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: 11 Sep 2000 17:05:01 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<regarding IE on Solaris>
: Sorry! cant belive you...that is simply not possible
: /IL
:> Its far, far worse than 'nutscrape' on any platform.
Trust me. It is. Imagine, if you will, an X application that
replaces the standard X11 pointer cursor and "stopwatch" cursor
with MS-Windows ones. As I recall, even the little "hand"
pointer was Windows-ified. But wait, there's more! It took
twice as long as Netscape to start (on the same system) and
ran about half as fast with mediocre rendering to boot.
All-in-all, it felt like it was running in some sort of
emulated environment rather than as a native app and I
deleted it from my system within the hour. So yes,
IE for Solaris really is much worse than Netscape.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: 11 Sep 2000 17:06:52 GMT
In alt.destroy.microsoft Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: New Zealander. I don't think we should let the companies do what they want
: either - that would be an extraordinarily bad idea. There are companies far
: more evil than Microsoft out there though, and I think wasting time on MS is
: pointless. Why not go after the polluters, or the people who do serious
: harm to the world we live in?
:
:
Microsoft does pollute the computer industry. It does cause serious
harm to your network if you use their polluted W63K DNS/ADS. They have
managed to pollute your mind (and all the other professionals who pray
for Microsoft's reign to continue so that they can be paid to find
work-arounds to substandard products). So why not begin with them?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 11 Sep 2000 17:16:20 GMT
On 11 Sep 2000 17:05:01 GMT, Brian Langenberger wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>All-in-all, it felt like it was running in some sort of
>emulated environment rather than as a native app and I
>deleted it from my system within the hour. So yes,
IIRC, they ported several APIs, so it feels like an "emulated environment"
largely because it basically is.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: 11 Sep 2000 17:18:41 GMT
On 11 Sep 2000 17:06:52 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>In alt.destroy.microsoft Stuart Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Microsoft does pollute the computer industry. It does cause serious
>harm to your network if you use their polluted W63K DNS/ADS. They have
>managed to pollute your mind (and all the other professionals who pray
It's absurd to compare aggressive marketting and vendor
lock to wholesale destruction of the environment. Your post
is diversionary nonsense.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Nigel Feltham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux=True
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 18:41:48 +0100
>Huh! Gates nicked all his (good) ideas from the mac. Unfortunatly for
>him, the mac's gui was designed from the ground up, but windoze wasn't.
>Win 3.11 and earlier were good, because they didn't try and be anything
>more than a shell to dos - they did what they achieved and they did it
>well. Win95 and later tried to copy MacOS in being a full OS, and failed
>miserably, leaving us with the steaming pile of sh*t we have today.....
>I wonder how it will all end?
>>
This is not totally true - he nicked things from other places too - Wasn't
the
archimedes the first machine with a taskbar?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: The reason I don't care about the flame wars
Date: 11 Sep 2000 17:26:48 GMT
On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 12:40:42 -0400, Rich C wrote:
>Advocating Linux to "real" people is a good idea. However, most of the
>anti-linux people who come into this newsgroup are here specifically to bash
>Linux and to get a rise out of the advocates here. They use fake identities,
>most of which have been idetified and posted from time to time to inform the
>newbies. We call them trolls. These people expect abuse, and we make sure
>they get it.
THere are trolls on both sides of the fence.
Obviously, if you respond to their idiocy with abuse, you are playing
right into their hands.
>Unless you want to have some fun. Also, it points out to the newbies in the
>group how lame their arguments really are.
THeir arguments are self-evidently lame.
>When someone comes into the group with an honest problem with or question
>about Linux, we try to help them. But when somebody like Tim Palmer comes
>around with "lineux suckz"
TIm Palmer has done almost enough of a service to Linux advocacy to
make up for the harm done by some of the idiots here.
> or Steve/Claire comes along and says she's spent
>the day color coding the Linux boxes at her local Comp-USA to prove how low
>the sales are, it's time to flame away.
Nopew. When Steve/Claire/Sponge/.... comes along, it's time to simply
point out that this person is a troll who has already been refuted in
a zillion threads.
Or better, just put them in your killfile ( all of them )
--
Donovan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
