Linux-Advocacy Digest #84, Volume #29 Tue, 12 Sep 00 23:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Another "feature" in IE discovered. ("ostracus")
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! (Andrew Carpenter)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years ("Otto")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Ermine Todd III")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800 (Marty)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ("Ermine Todd III")
Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers ("David Sidlinger")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "ostracus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another "feature" in IE discovered.
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 21:09:48 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (D.
Spider) wrote:
> IE feature can track Web surfers without warning
>
> By Paul Festa Staff Writer, CNET News.com September 11, 2000, 12:50 p.m.
> PT
>
>
> People surfing the Web incognito may want to think twice before using
> Internet Explorer. Microsoft today said it is investigating a possible
> privacy loophole in its Internet Explorer browser that could thwart
> efforts by people who want to surf the Web anonymously. The feature in
> IE
> 5 and above, referred to by Microsoft as "persistence," is designed to
> let Web pages remember information, such as search queries, entered by
> visitors.
>
> But privacy advocates complain, and Microsoft today acknowledged, that
> the trade-off for that convenience is that Web sites could uniquely
> identify visitors as they return over time--without any warning from IE.
Convenience (ease of use) vs privacy. Decisions, decisions.
> Microsoft defended the feature and pointed out that the vast majority of
> Web surfers already are knowingly vulnerable to the same level of
> exposure.
>
And this is suppose to make people feel, what exactly?
> Full story at:
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1005-200-2751843.html?tag=st.ne.1002.tgif.ni
--
There was once a young man who, in his youth, professed his desire become
a great writer.
When asked to define "great" he said, "I want to write stuff that the
whole world will read, stuff that people will react to on a truly
emotional level, stuff that will make them scream, cry, howl in pain and
anger!"
He now works for Microsoft, writing error messages.
------------------------------
From: Andrew Carpenter <[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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:41:32 +1030
Simon Cooke wrote:
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Remember, PCs running Linux don't have a BIOS, so they're not
> > vulnerable to the types of BIOS problems that mere regular
> > PCs have.
>
> Uh... yes they do. PCs running Linux use the BIOS to run LILO.
(psst -- I think that was sarcasm!)
Just for interest's sake, there's a project around to put Linux in the
BIOS. (Well, relevant parts of it anyway.)
http://www.acl.lanl.gov/linuxbios/
Very cool :)
------------------------------
From: "Otto" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 02:12:59 GMT
"Chris Sherlock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:39bdf7e6$0$26514
: > - We have Icons on the desktop that look remeniscent of
: > Win95. Of course, with the icons on the left-hand side.
:
: Again, these look like a lot of Mac icons that I've seen. A trash can?
Gee,
: that's so much worse than the "recycle bin" that MS stole of Apple...
Correction... Apple had "garbage can", which did look like a stinky old
garbage can. The "recyling bin" on the other hand is a better looking and
politically correct definition of the same :).
: I don't think that the GNOME project is doing such a bad job as you make
: out. now if only they could make a decent interface to configure hardware.
I
: really don't like Linuxconf very much. For now, I'll stick to editing
config
: files in vi :)
Actually, maybe because I like the GUI of any OS, the Linuxconf is pretty
good. I only use vi when I must.
Otto
------------------------------
From: "Ermine Todd III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:19:18 -0700
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Then do you also remember IBM messing it up so badly that MS HAD to create
Windows 3.0? Do you remember IBM refusing to make OS/2 a true 32-bit 386
based OS and insisting that it had to have a CHARACTER MODE UI and that it
had to run on -286? I agree that OS/2 could have been the right answer -
certainly the API was structured more logically and consistently - but IBM
screwed it up.
--ET--
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 18:55:50 -0700, Ermine Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> >The 4 years really does relate to the fact that they should have had a
> >version for Windows 2.x/ 386 back in '87 or earlier - you do remember
> >PageMaker don't you?
>
> Why, yes, and I also remember that MS and IBM were telling everyone
> that OS/2 was the next big push and that hardly anybody used Win 2.x.
>
>
> --
> -| Bob Hauck
> -| To Whom You Are Speaking
> -| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
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 22:23:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"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?
>> >>
>> >> Mostly because the control mechanisms are pre-constructed, rather
>> >> limited, and not great in number. A web page is a paradigm created for
>> >> *browsing* information, not manipulating it.
>> >
>> >All of which are overridable. You don't have to keep the default
>behavior.
>> >You just bind to the element, and override it.
>>
>> So build me a menu system, and a context menu, and then let's watch the
>> overhead make the thing slow as dogshit. You can't build a real
>> interface in a web page; its a *browser* paradigm, not a friggen control
>> mechanism.
>
>Last time I checked the controls weren't "IN" a web page even in a regular
>web browser. There are documents diplayed and input boxes "IN" the web page
>but all controls are on the toolbar, like most other apps. And those
>controls are just as quick as any others. What's the trouble?
The trouble is that you are so badly confused that I can hardly even
begin to explain how confused you are. The trouble is you (and,
unfortunately, a growing majority of software developers, not to mention
millions of people who've never seen anything but crapware, to the point
they don't even know what 'usable' *means*) wouldn't know a functional
and efficient graphic user interface if it kicked them in the nuts.
[...]
>> Think of it as dogshit, because that's what it is. How about you
>> control every element by programming it, like normal? Just why is the
>> developer's convenience suddenly more important than the efficiency and
>> convenience of the end user?
>
>Any time you find yourself writing "like normal" you'd better re-read it.
Oh, yea, I need advice from you, 'JS/PL'. Not likely.
>Haven't you ever heard the quote "If I do what I've always done, I'll get
>what I've always got."
>Looks to me like Intuit decided NOT to do what they've always done and it's
>paid off big time! AS your the only person on earth who DOESN'T like the
>cool interface.
Oh, that explains it then. (???)
--
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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:35:44 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> So build me a menu system, and a context menu, and then let's watch the
>> overhead make the thing slow as dogshit. You can't build a real
>> interface in a web page; its a *browser* paradigm, not a friggen control
>> mechanism.
>
>Both of which are easy -- you use Windows to do that stuff. The menu is part
>of your browser site. The context menu is displayed for you by assigning one
>specifically to the control for a given operation. It's as fast as doing it
>in - say - notepad.
I'm not sure if you're stupid enough to think notepad is a decent user
interface, to be honest. It seems possible. As for the 'which menu is
the menu' issue you've brought up, its just another reason for remarking
that a 'web' interface for anything but web page browsing (or even
that!) is so horribly bad an idea that its almost impossible to
understand how anyone could ever accept it as tolerable, let alone
acceptable. Then I remember that the monopoly has been around so long,
most user's have already become convinced that computers are *supposed*
to be frustrating, stupidly designed, and hard to use. Oh, and they're
supposed to crash a lot, too, and the user's supposed to blame
themselves when it happens.
[...]
>> Think of it as dogshit, because that's what it is. How about you
>> control every element by programming it, like normal? Just why is the
>> developer's convenience suddenly more important than the efficiency and
>> convenience of the end user?
>
>Because if it wasn't, we'd all be programming in machine code and each
>application would be its own operating system?
Now there's a false dichotomy for you. Either every bit gets programmed
in assembler, or you stick every possible thing on a web page and
consider the job done. What a nitwit.
>YOU ARE TALKING BASELESSLY. AND IN CONCLUSION, YOU'RE A FUCKWIT.
"And in conclusion, you're a fuckwit?" LOL :-D
People who assume whatever fad and buzzword the largest number of fools
and goofballs are used to hearing is the basis of sound technical design
are 'fuckwits'. "Wow, everybody knows the word 'web', why don't we just
make all of our interfaces 'web pages'!" "Yea, great idea! It'll be
attractive and 'cool' that way!" (Of course, it won't be expedient,
efficient, or effective for the *end user*, in comparison to a standard
window, but that's why they're called 'fuckwits'. It doesn't matter how
much it 'fucks wit' the user's control, confidence, or comprehension, as
long as it makes things easier for the developers.)
Then again, I guess the fact that Microsoft wanted to restrain trade by
bolting the 'browser' into their OS probably had more to do with it then
I give them credit for. According to court testimony, they've been
running around trying to get everyone and their sister to rely as much
as possible on a 'web interface' for years now.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:37:22 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>I am starting from the basis that there would be no sue
>if there was no infringement.
So you're making assumptions and expecting everyone else to go along
with them, is that what you're saying?
[...]
>> Quit ankle-biting, Roberto. You know I can beat you at this game. I'd
>> rather have a real discussion without all this posturing and pretense.
>
>Allow me to snort tea while I laugh at your pathetic post.
Allow me to point out you're ankle-biting, and still don't have a point
to any of your posts, pathetic or otherwise.
--
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: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451800
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 02:33:41 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Jim "our-very-own-twice-elected-KOTM" Stuyck writes:
Why not pick a more unique name, like "Fozzy" or "Kermit"?
------------------------------
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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:28:29 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> The OS looks in the registry to see if the user has selected an alternate
> command shell. It's like the conf (or whatever) file that nix uses to do
the
> same thing. The only difference might be that if it cannot access the
registry
> or cannot find that value it defaults to explorer.exe. Some defaults
(like this
> one) are written to the registry for illustrative purposes. Perhaps linux
works
> just fine if that conf file that specifies it's shell gets deleted. I
know
> Windows does.
That conf file? Which would that be? Perhaps /etc/passwd? If that file
were deleted unix would still keep running, but no one would be able to
login until the error is corrected. Remember that under unix it can run
many different shells at the same time and can have a different login shell
for each user who can be loged in at the same time.
> Windows allows for a GUI or CLI shell to be used. If the CLI shell
specifies
> fullscreen mode then you will have a real CLI shell that you can freely
run both
> CLI and GUI apps from. This CLI supports long filenames, piping,
redirection,
> shell scripting, etc. It also supports file associations so I can just
type the
> name of a document to have it open in the associated application. I've
got
> command line completion, a nice history feature and a bunch of other cool
CLI
> stuff. Windows is completely usable from the command line if you *really*
like
> that kinda thing in this day and age or if you are telnetting in remotely.
Is the true for all WIndows after 3.x?
> It you want to use program manager as your shell (eww) you can. The start
menu
> is gone as are all the desktop icons, shortcut menus etc. The only think
> apparently different is that minimized applications that used to be icons
are
> now minimized windows. I think there's another registry value that lets
you
> view them as icons again. As for making the interface a "dead ringer"
it's
> pretty close -- only the updated window UI and widgets give it away.
Then Windows can not support this behavior as well as unix.
> Oh yeah. Who told you that any version of Windows lost the ability to
change
> the width of window borders? From Windows 95 through 2000 just open
Display
> Properties, click appearance, click a window border and set the width,
color,
> shading colors, etc. and you can even make active Windows behave
differently
> than inactive Windows so your foreground app has a wide, black, purple
shaded
> border while you background apps have none :-)
In the Windows 3.x or Windows 2.x or Windows 1.x appearence?
> If advocates of each platform could stop exchanging so much
disinformation,
> admit that there are some really nice things about the competing platforms
and
> stop all the political wrangling I think we'd probably learn something
other
> than how to hate each other. I know it's not the reason that I started
> following this advocacy group. On the contrary I was just tired of seeing
so
> much disinformation being spread regarding my platform of choice. It
seemed
> that I couldn't go anywhere without hearing how linux never crashes or how
Macs
> are so much faster than PCs. Now I realize that no matter how plainly
proven to
> some folks, they will not concede even a single point. That and
misconceptions
> like the ones you apparently had about running Program Manager in Windows
95 and
> changing border widths are so common here.
If you think I hate Windows that much, check my headers.
> It's like participating in some kind of weird high tech Jerry Springer
show.
Have you been on Jerry Springer show so to be able to make a valid
comparison?
------------------------------
From: "Ermine Todd III" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 19:42:23 -0700
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
There are security levels beyond (maybe complimentary to) Administrator that
are reserved for the OS itself. The easiest way to see one of these is to
examine system services - you will note that some services are set to run as
'SYSTEM'. Another way to test this is to load TaskMgr and try to kill some
of the processes that are running as system (or higher). You will find that
you are denied. SYSTEM is not an authority level that a user can use - but
also note that there are some restrictions on SYSTEM that would limit it's
utility as a user permission level.
There are other levels as well as various guard processes and threads. In
Win2K and WindowsME, the protections really start to kick in where replacing
critical system files can not be performed by users but only by specially
trusted mechanisms. Much more secure than Root.
--ET--
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 12:33:56 +1000, Christopher Smith wrote:
> >
>
> >No, it isn't the "same difference" at all. Administrator and root are
very
> >different things. Stuff like security and hardware abstraction actually
> >apply to the Administrator account, whereas Unix security runs along the
> >lines of "if UID=0, allow anything" - yet another reason NT is better.
>
> Could you explain how "security and hardware abstraction" do apply to
> Administrator and do not apply to root ?
>
> --
> Donovan
------------------------------
From: "David Sidlinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.microsoft.sucks,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Enemies of Linux are MS Lovers
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 21:46:30 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The original poster indicated that an actual service contract is a
> separate, larger, annual fee. I haven't verified his facts, but it does
> seem that the $2500 is merely for the per-server 'licensing'; I have no
> details on how this is supported or enforced. The cost mentioned for
> the service contract was $35,000/year, IIRC.
>
After doing some more research, it turns out that, with that $2500 purchase,
you get "business-hours" support for a year. The $10,000 figure that I
stated in the post referred to above, was erroneus. I can't get an actual
figure from the web site because you have to speak to a sales rep (and I
really don't feel like getting tons of calls from Red Hat following up). I
know I saw $10,000 somewhere. Regardless, 9-to-5 support is insufficient
for most businesses. (Have you ever noticed that things tend to go wrong in
the wee hours of the morning, causing your place of business to call you
when you already stayed up way too late wading through the NGs?)
>
> I entirely agree; maintenace/support contracts on which millions of
> dollars of business rely are generally along these lines. Whether it is
> a wise investment is entirely up to the consumer of such agreements.
>
> Your remark, however, did remind me of a recent incident, which I didn't
> examine critically at the time, but now deserves a mention, as it seems,
> in light of this discussion, to suggest anti-competitive intent. I
> haven't heard of anyone suing on anti-trust grounds, but recently HP
> modified their business practices concerning their 'industry-standard'
> HP OpenView product line. In a move which seems at least superficially
> similar to Kodak's, in attempting to monopolize copier service contracts
> on Kodak copiers, (as cited by Judge Jackson in his conviction of
> Microsoft) HP has 'bundled' the cost of the first year service contract
> in with the cost of the product (license) itself.
>
> It is worth noting that nobody in the network management software
> industry would consider getting support on a proprietary software
> product from anyone but the developer, since none of the software is
> open source, as 'open' as it might be said to be otherwise. I'd say
> that simply indicates that even at the heart of the IT industry,
> tolerance for anti-competitive behavior is at outrageously high levels.
>
(T. Max, please don't take this next statement as supporting monopolistic
practices, just a point of curiosity)
It does seem that the industry is becoming more tolerant of monopolies
behaving badly. Marc Andreesen(sp?) was featured in an article in the
latest issue of "Smart Business for the New Economy". Apparently, his new
company LoudCloud is partnering with MSFT. He also implies that a company
*must* be a monopoly to survive in the tech universe and that maybe he
shouldn't have pushed so hard for DOJ action against MSFT. What does
everyone make of this?
- David
------------------------------
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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:52:38 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>I told you "the credits page". Guess what, the link says "credits".
You're still posturing, apparently. I thought you'd have given up by
now. I don't *care* what the 'link says'. I'm not a newbie amateur who
goes 'click click click' all day. Give me a real reference, or save the
bits.
>[snip usless rant about his browsing habits]
Maybe you should have paid more attention; you wouldn't look like such
an idiot who pretends to be a programmer but can't even understand what
a complete url reference is.
>> >Now, if you are too stupid to know where to click, or too lazy to
>> >do the click, or somehow believe that typing
>> >"http://www.kde.org/credits.html" is easier than "http://www.kde.org"
>> >and following a link, then you are way too stupid, lazy, or generally
>> >worthless to waster time on you.
>>
>> I didn't say I was too stupid, nor too lazy. I asked where some
>> information was, and you said "its over there, somewhere". Forgive me
>> for pointing out that such a response is worse than useless.
>
>Had I said that, I would agree. I told you the URL and what the link
>was. There is such a thing as "search in page", you know.
So you're still assuming that I'm going to spend effort to make up for
your moronic inability to give a simple reference, is that it?
>What I told you was enough to find the page. If you were able
>to find it without my help, good for you. If you weren't able to
>find it with my help, bad for you. If you didn't bother finding it,
>bad for you.
Yea, I guess it is. I honestly can't believe you expect anyone to take
you seriously, when you go on for days and days with such empty
posturing, all because you were trying your hardest to be as unhelpful
as possible by giving *textual direction* to a friggen' *web page*, and
your ego is so huge that you can't even admit it once it becomes obvious
that you've been found out.
Welcome to the year 2000, Roberto. We don't say "go here and click on
this" when someone asks for an url ; we say
"http://www.kde.org/credits.html".
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:53:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>> For turning the QT API into the "the market for libraries supporting the
>> QT API".
>
>Uh? I rate this as the most inane comment today.
I presume that means you're incapable of understanding it, like usual.
>> I'm not saying they would have been successful, but it is
>> basically because of his actions that they eventually 'had to' GPL QT.
>> I'm not worried if you accept this or not; I don't think its much of an
>> issue either way. But can you understand it as a hypothetical point?
>
>I refuse to even grant that status to such a poor point.
I refuse to go on with such a boring show of pretense.
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: 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: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:55:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>No, it's just that I tend to be precise.
You tend to be thick-headed, and boring, and full of silly pretensions.
Someone who 'tended to be precise' might have thought to give a complete
url. Someone who 'tended to be precise' wouldn't use an imaginary
pretext to pretend the phrase "develop a KDE application" is difficult
to comprehend. Someone who 'tended to be precise' wouldn't be so
god-awful boring.
Snooze.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2000 22:56:15 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
[...]
>Ok, so now you, who have not read any of my email (hopefully), know
>better than I do why I get that email. You are precious.
You're boring. Your pretense is showing.
--
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
******************************
