Linux-Advocacy Digest #68, Volume #29 Tue, 12 Sep 00 06:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Stuart Fox")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Stuart Fox")
I admit it - Linux CAN be cool upon occassion ("Chris Willis")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers (T. Max Devlin)
Re: I admit it - Linux CAN be cool upon occassion ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Zenin)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Ingemar Lundin")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 04:12:30 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>Good day to you too, Jonathan!
So, Jerry, why is it you post using 'Seán Ó Donnchadha', instead of as
Jerry Shekhel, which Jonathan Revusky says is your real name?
--
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: "Stuart Fox" <[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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:16:52 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
> Outlook is complete an utter crap for each and every potential use. I
> know; I have to use it. As an expert in the implementation of
> operationally functional, I can tell you with no fear of contradiction
> that Outlook is a monstrously useless piece of dogshit. Except, of
> course, in comparison to 'nothing at all'.
And in comparison to Notes client...
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:21:37 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8pkk73$uh8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Ermine Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:u$1iqpFHAHA.316@cpmsnbbsa09...
> >
> > Actually you can. Alternate shells for Windows do exist and are readily
> > installable and usable. In fact, if you don't like the explorer shell
and
> > like the older program manager approach, you can enable that instead.
In
> > fact, there have even been shells for Windows that completely emulated
the
> > Mac such that a Mac user wouldn't even know that they were using a
Windows
> > PC (if you disguised the mouse and keyboard a little). I know this
> because
> > I had to set this up at a Fortune 50 company back in the late 80's -
never
> > ceased to amuse to watch a Mac fanatic sit down at the "beta" test "Mac"
> and
> > report how much faster and better it was than their old Mac they had on
> > their desk. It really became a laugh when they later found out that it
> had
> > been a Windows PC they were praising.
> >
> > Using Explorer is an option setting in the Registry.
>
> What is the Registry option setting?
HKLM\Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\Current
Version\Winlogon\Shell=Explorer.exe (default)
>
> Does this do more than just run the Program Manager while the start menu
is
> still there? Does this make say Windows 95 interface a dead ringer for
the
> Windows 3.0 interface and does the user get the came control over the
> appearance including the size of the windows borders?
>
AFAIK, the Start menu disappears, and you get whatever shell you have
specified - perhaps IE ( kiosk applications?)
>
------------------------------
From: "Chris Willis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: I admit it - Linux CAN be cool upon occassion
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 08:35:52 GMT
I have a cable modem (laugh away, but my 1.2mbit average downloads dusts
most dsl slowpokes - that means over 150kb per second from fast servers). I
want a server to share it to my 2 working computers. I don't want to run an
illegal copy of Windoze2000 (what, no piracy, what am I thinking?), probably
because I am feeling like legal is the way to go this time (and I don't have
the hardware to properly run it).
When I was given a meager P90 (48mb RAM, 2gb HD, 4x CDROM, Trident VGA,
3c509, 14" VGA), I decided to try AGAIN to run Linux as my little local
server. So, the ol' Redhat 6.1 CD set got dusted off.
Because of linuxnewbie.org and www.redhat.com, I actually have ip masq AND
apache running. That means 2 nics are installed and functional. Woohoo!!!
So, even though it is still a total pain in the arse to configure (sheesh,
even simple tasks are completly foreign to me), I am going to keep pluggin
away at it until I have bind, proftpd, email server, sound, and other stuff
fully functional (like packet filtering / port forwarding).
And yes, even though it pains me greatly to say it, running a 100% free OS
on 100% free hardware is kinda cool. Not TOO cool, but kinda cool.
Chris
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 04:37:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said David Sidlinger in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> You've apparently been using Microsoft OSes, then.
>>
>Not just MSFT. My entire career has been spent in mixed environments. It
>could be that all of the AS/400 and Unix administrators I've had the
>pleasure of working with don't know diddly-squat, but I don't think that the
>chances of that are too great, seeing as I've worked with quite a few. Were
>some of them better than others? Definately. Could all of them been idiots
>compared to you? I seriously doubt it. I am not saying that Windows is the
>end-all in computing (I'm not nearly that stupid). I'm just saying that
>*all* OSs have problems from time to time.
Any implementation can have problems; there's too many variables and too
much of Captain Murphy for anything to be perfect. 'MSFT' is crap
software, in comparison to all other OSes. That's not to say it is
entirely disfunctional, but that's not the same as being competitive.
[...]
>Planned outages were not included in these numbers. And when I say Unix
>downtime, I mean *Unix* downtime. For instance, a properly configured Unix
>machine cannot connect to the affected machine in any way (telnet, http and
>ftp servers, etc.)
So, you mean unreachability, rather than down time?
>> Sounds like you've got a Unix-based application that has been down for a
>> week. With real computers, we are able to differentiate between a
>> 'server being down' and an application being unavailable.
>
>See above. Also, we idiotic (well, at least some of us) NT/2000 users do
>understand the difference between a server and a service provided by that
>server being unavailable.
But you idiotic (yes, most of you) NT/2000 users *can't tell the
difference*, by definition. Its a function of Microsoft design and the
nature of the platform; Microsoft *doesn't want* there to be a
difference between the OS and the application. There literally *is no
difference* in some cases (whenever Microsoft can manage). Its not
enough that third party apps crash or lock up the OS; Microsoft's own
applications do it. And routinely under some (undeterminate, alas)
conditions.
Three cheers for closed source and 'integrated' crapware; they save us
the trouble of caring whether it is the server or the OS that failed.
Either way, you just reboot and cross your fingers...
[...]
>No, our Unix admins despise MSFT just as much as you. I think that a lot of
>the problem is that there are quite a few NT/2000 admins who have no
>real-world knowledge of anything, much less other OSs. I understand your
>frustration with MSFT, and I probably get more pissed off at it on a daily
>basis than you do. (When I develop for Windows, I usually end up smack-dab
>in the middle of the API. Now that's a party!)
I'm not quite sure if you truly understand the character and depth of my
frustration, but I'll admit that is a personal problem. Since I have
been trying to teach people to use computers effectively, efficiently,
and expediently for more than a decade, now, and Microsoft has been
'fighting me' every step of the way, I doubt that any admin or
programmer, in the depths of their specialty of expertise, can
appreciate the overwhelming nature of the problem.
You've several times tweaked me for labeling people with a broad brush,
and I can appreciate that. But the matter which concerns me is no so
much the huge number of people who are unknowingly locked into the
monopoly. It is actually the large and growing number of people that
are knowingly locked into the monopoly.
>Geez. I don't know why I even get into these discussions anymore. I'm
>purely doing development now (for *nix and Windows). I've been out of the
>"admin" role for quite some time.
It doesn't matter what role you have; you're still being screwed by the
monopoly.
The first step is admitting you have a problem....
--
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: "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I admit it - Linux CAN be cool upon occassion
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 08:50:18 GMT
WHAT!!???
ARE THEY PEOPLE THAT RUNS PIRATED VERSIONS OF WINDOWS 2000??
IM SHOCKED!!!!!!
/IL
"Chris Willis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
news:IVlv5.66694$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I have a cable modem (laugh away, but my 1.2mbit average downloads dusts
> most dsl slowpokes - that means over 150kb per second from fast servers).
I
> want a server to share it to my 2 working computers. I don't want to run
an
> illegal copy of Windoze2000 (what, no piracy, what am I thinking?),
probably
> because I am feeling like legal is the way to go this time (and I don't
have
> the hardware to properly run it).
>
> When I was given a meager P90 (48mb RAM, 2gb HD, 4x CDROM, Trident VGA,
> 3c509, 14" VGA), I decided to try AGAIN to run Linux as my little local
> server. So, the ol' Redhat 6.1 CD set got dusted off.
>
> Because of linuxnewbie.org and www.redhat.com, I actually have ip masq AND
> apache running. That means 2 nics are installed and functional.
Woohoo!!!
>
> So, even though it is still a total pain in the arse to configure (sheesh,
> even simple tasks are completly foreign to me), I am going to keep pluggin
> away at it until I have bind, proftpd, email server, sound, and other
stuff
> fully functional (like packet filtering / port forwarding).
>
> And yes, even though it pains me greatly to say it, running a 100% free OS
> on 100% free hardware is kinda cool. Not TOO cool, but kinda cool.
>
> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: Zenin <[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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 08:54:41 GMT
Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: No its not possible...(as it shouldnt be in a modern security oriented OS)
You didn't answer the real question.
: And Windows 2000 goes even further by protecting the most critical system
: files ...
How so, exactly? No "it does, so there", I want explicit details.
: That i call security, as opposed to *nix systems enormous potential
: security breach as "root", were you can do all sorts of harm to the system
: without being restricted...
AFAIK, the same is true for Administrator. So far, you've offered
absolutely nothing that points to the contrary. Put up or shut up.
--
-Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:06:50 +1000
"Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8pjtrc$h4i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "The Ghost In The Machine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
> > > message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Every window has a title bar with buttons to minimize, close, etc,
> right?
> > > How about adding a button to pull up the task list? Then you wouldn't
> need
> > a
> > > task bar or access to the bare desktop to find your icons. You could
> also
> > > include items to navigate between your virtual desktops as well. Your
> > other
> > > desktops and your running programs would always be a button click
away,
> > even
> > > if you are running an app "full screen."
> >
> > A better way would be like OS/2 used to do it - hit both mouse buttons
> > together and you get the task list. It'd be a lot quicker.
> >
>
> What about middle button emulation? That would be confusing IMO
Only if you're used to using it instead of a real middle mouse button.
But putting the task list on a menu in the window would be a bit awkward, I
think.
------------------------------
From: "Ingemar Lundin" <[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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 09:15:17 GMT
Thats my point....its NOT! the same as administrator in Windows
2000/NT...that you should
know if you had any experience with it.
and the same thing hits back at you!
/IL
> AFAIK, the same is true for Administrator. So far, you've offered
> absolutely nothing that points to the contrary. Put up or shut up.
>
> --
> -Zenin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) From The Blue Camel we learn:
> BSD: A psychoactive drug, popular in the 80s, probably developed at UC
> Berkeley or thereabouts. Similar in many ways to the prescription-only
> medication called "System V", but infinitely more useful. (Or, at least,
> more fun.) The full chemical name is "Berkeley Standard Distribution".
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 05:16:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said 2 + 2 in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
[...]
>Now you're off into what market power means.
"See Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 14 (defining market power as ability
to force purchaser to do something that he would not do in competitive
market)..."
I suppose that may have to do, being legal precedent and all, though it
sounds far too much like 'monopoly power' to be considered truly
definitive.
[...]
>Are you saying that the Java Platform, which many say is the market leader
>in "n" tier server software, has "market power," and if it excludes:
The 'Java Platform' is not a company, is not a producer, nor a vendor.
[...]
>and that is a non-tech tying to the Sun server product that has helped Sun
>beat competitors in the Unix server markets,
>
>and thus is "anti-competitive."
I know of no Sun server products which, unless they are themselves Java,
require you to use Java, nor Sun Java products which, unless they are
themselves servers, require you to use Sun servers.
>I would disagree, and say that the Java Platform is a tech-tying.
>
>And in fact all middleware generally is.
Try again. You might actually have a point, somehow, but it certainly
isn't evident in this statement.
>And further that any product that is a monopoly, ie able to prevent
>competition, should be required to include competing middleware
Products cannot be monopolies; companies are monopolies.
[...]
>>You might be better off, BTW, if
>>you replaced the phrase 'unfair competition' with 'anti-competitive'; it
>>is closer to the terminology used in legal examination. "Unfair
>>competition" is an oxymoron.
>
>Fine. Call it what you like. "Unfair" competition means, in my definition,
>"anti-competitive" competition, plus whatever other kinds of activities that
>are said to compete in some way, that the courts have said are illegal.
That's what I thought; thanks for confirming that. So you should
definitely be better off if you just use 'anti-competitive', as that is,
AFAIK, the only 'kinds' (technically, 'classes') of activities which are
outlawed, and least by anti-trust statutes.
>>>I have never really disagreed with the non-tech tying argument.
>>>
>>>What I have said that jumping to that stage of the analysis is agruing
>>>conclusions, since there is a jump over the real issue, which is whether
>>>there is a tech tying.
>>
>>Could you tell me what you mean by 'arguing conclusions'? It isn't a
>>'jump past' the per se rule. Its an avoidance of it altogether, because
>>it is inappropriate for the case. Per se rules for determining if
>>anti-trust violations have occurred are never mandatory; they are all
>>just short-cuts to the *real* analysis, which is "the rule of reason".
>>If there's less competition because you did something, and you knew that
>>would be the result, you're guilty. (You still have an opportunity in
>>defense to refute these assertions, but if you can't overcome the burden
>>of proof and provide reasonable doubt that it wasn't what you did, or
>>that you didn't intend that result, you'll be convicted.)
>
>Max, you just throwing out bull, a hodge podge of legal glop.
A synthesis of legal issues, perhaps.
>First of all, the accused does not have the burden of proof, except perhaps
>in Chinese systems, where the govt is always right and individual's have no
>freedom, especially legal-based freedoms that began a long ascent with the
>Magna Carta, which established trial by a jury of peers, but is important
>for its historical basis in limiting power.
Actually, once the prosecution has shown that the defendant has monopoly
power (the ability to control prices or exclude competition, regardless
of any actual demonstration of such), the burden of proof is, literally,
on the defendant.
"See United States v. AT&T Co., 524 F. Supp. 1336, 1347-48 (D.D.C. 1981)
("a persuasive showing . . . that defendants have monopoly power . . .
through various barriers to entry, . . . in combination with the
evidence of market shares, suffice[s] at least to meet the government's
initial burden, and the burden is then appropriately placed upon
defendants to rebut the existence and significance of barriers to
entry")"
>To a media educated person who believes in trial by spin, this may seem
>strange, except of course, they get accused.
>
>The accused in a civil matter does not have the burden of proof. Allegations
>are simply that.
You forget; simply possessing an overwhelming market share can be
considered conclusive evidence of anti-competitive behavior.
[...]
>Again "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a rule for testing the evidence, ie
>whether the evidence proves any given element of proof that is required, in
>a CRIMINAL case.
>
>In a civil case, what constitutes proof is the weight of the evidence.
Civil or criminal, the 'rule of reason' is that if you have a monopoly,
its because you monopolized. Free markets do not allow monopolies to
begin with; a substantial market share is prima facia evidence of
anti-competitive behavior, in some cases.
[...]
>Regarding intention, you are just throwing out terms, but in the law,
>intention is carefully distinguished. It is subjective, not objective. So
>called intentional torts, such as slander, require intention as an element
>of proof.
>
>Other civil wrongs may not require "intent," since intent may be a greater
>hurdle in many instances.
In point of fact, neither civil nor criminal prosecution on anti-trust
grounds require intent be proven, though failure to prove intent
certainly provides a ready defense. The only time intent is questioned
in anti-trust cases is when the charge is 'attempted monopolization'.
According to the 'rule of reason', monopolization itself is not possible
without willful intent, so proof of monopoly power is sufficient to gain
a conviction.
[...]
>When "tech tying" is found, the result is that two products are NOT
>considered to be involved. You keep avoiding this because you are arguing by
>conclusions.
>
>You have reached you conclusion. And your arguments do not go to the matters
>that are are in dispute.
>
>When a CD player is added to a cassette deck, you have a tech-tying and the
>CD player makers are out of luck.
Thanks for explaining what you mean. I am neither arguing by
conclusion, nor misunderstanding tech tying, though I must point out I
suspect you're doing both. CD players and cassette decks are two
separate products. They are 'tied together' to become one product.
There are two products "involved"; I'm not sure where you're getting
confused on that point. The matter that is in dispute is whether there
were two separate products to begin with. MS says no, everyone else
says yes. Result: a restraint of trade conviction for Microsoft.
[...]
>Incorrect. In the cassette player that adds CD player capabilities, the
>court is not going to look to the consumer or producer to decide. The court
>will itself decide.
Incorrect. In all anti-trust matters, the court looks to the market;
the demand, the consumer. I'm kind of unsure how you could possibly be
confused on the matter.
"Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated that the "essential
characteristic" of an illegal tying arrangement is a seller's decision
to exploit its market power over the tying product "to force the buyer
into the purchase of a tied product that the buyer either did not want
at all, or might have preferred to purchase elsewhere on different
terms." Jefferson Parish, 466 U.S. at 12.
>>>Let's suppose that the Java platform, via SOAP, and other improvements, is
>>>able to provide all the functionality of a PC via the browser, as was
>>>promised long ago, and now must be done because the .NET Platform is going
>>>to do it, and it will be the kiss of death in the market not to do it.
>>
>>I consider the .NET 'platform' to be the kiss of death, but I won't
>>quibble about it now.
>
>If a computer does not offer integrated OS apps with web page functionality
>when a competitor does, then that competitor will lose in the market, except
>as a fringe player.
Unless, of course, there really isn't any benefit to 'integrating OS
apps with web page functionality'. In a competitive market, the market
decides; every vendor is a potential 'fringe player'. It is the amount
of profit, not the market share, which determines what is 'successful'
in the market.
>The .NET Platform offers interoperability to a multitude of languages, while
>the Java Platform only a very few. Is this language-based
>anticompetitiveness?
No, simply confabulating. The .NET 'platform' provides no
interoperability whatsoever; it is a wholly proprietary product (or will
be, when its more than vapor and fantasies, if ever.)
[...]
>>Well, if we had a handful, or a few dozen, different developers making
>>different decisions and all competing in the market for the consumer's
>>individual purchase, then over time the 'right' way to split these
>>things up to provide the most efficient way for the customer to get what
>>he wants at the lowest price is developed 'automatically'.
>
>The reality is that not every vendor makes the underlying plumbing.
>
>So competition must be viewed in the light of reality.
The reality is that every vendor either makes their own plumbing, or
uses interoperable standards. Or, it monopolizes, which is an option,
but is illegal, as well.
[...]
>>That's because he doesn't understand the issue. Just because he is an
>>expert at something does not provide a reliable means of
>>prognosticating.
>
>He isn't just an expert at something. He is the creating expert of the web
>and heads the W3C consortium.
Sounds like an expert at something to me. I wouldn't question his
credentials as head of the W3C, though I've little admiration for their
efforts, but I'd dispute anyone claiming to be 'the creating expert of
the web.'
[...]
>There's no particular need to limit the technology in order to allow
>competing middleware to "expose APIs." It's a simple matter of adding
>technology rather than subtracting it.
Its a simple matter of supporting interoperability, which Microsoft
doesn't do.
[...]
>An OS platform with integrated "browser" functionality or a middleware
>"browser" platform with integrated "OS" functionality, ie framework or sets
>of libraries enabling apps, can present to the user a choice of browsers.
So why can't IE be removed, again?
>In fact, many new browsers are empowered since the underlying plumbing is
>there, and the browser maker only has to develop the shell.
Which is to say they aren't a browser maker, but a window designer?
[...]
>The middleware plumbing can be used by any browser, and Netscape uses it.
The 'middleware plumbing' (its called Win32, BTW, and is neither
middleware nor plumbing, as such abstract concepts are only valid
outside a single proprietary implementation) *has to be* used by every
browser, to some extent. Its a monopoly, see; nobody's allowed to get
ahead of ol' Bill, for fear he won't be able to rule the world like he
wants.
[...]
>I can't spend any more time, hopefully, on these issues. Unless some
>material is added that actually adds some insight (a piece by some lawyer
>who knew what they were talking about would be a good start), then I must
>try to bow out.
You've spent far too much time with senseless prattle as it is, to be
sure. Give it up; they're a monopoly, and their software reflects that.
It is crap, only good enough to ensure the next version can leverage a
locked-in market.
[...]
--
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: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:19:28 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ermine Todd in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >Consistently you prove how absolutely blind you are whenever the topic
> >relates to MS. I almost always buy systems without a pre-installed OS
(and
> >have for over 20 years now). The few times that I get a system with an
OS
> >installed, invariably as one of my first actions, I wipe the drives and
> >(re)install what I consider appropriate in the mode that I consider
> >appropriate.
>
> Without even the benefit of threading, I sense your comments are
> directed to me. Blind is something I certainly would not be.
>
> I, also, made a habit of wiping the hard drive and re-installing the
> bundled packages when I get a new PC. But over time, this became more
> and more difficult; in no small part due to the fact that for the last
> few years, I've only been using laptops, which have many peculiarities
> under Windows. Under Unix, they're just another PC, though the drivers
> are still harder to come by.
Please explain why laptops have peculiarities under Windows but are just
another PC to Unix.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
