Linux-Advocacy Digest #88, Volume #29 Wed, 13 Sep 00 04:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: US v Microsoft book by NYT reporters, reviewed by D.Lindsey ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Stuart Fox")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 02:56:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
>Functional and efficient means:
>
>1. Lets you do what you need to, quickly
"Lets"? I think not. Only interoperable protocols and compatibility
standards *enable* you to do so. Microsoft doesn't; they just 'let' you
lock yourself further into their crapware.
>2. Guides you when you need guidance
Oh, yea, let's hear it for dancing paperclips. Oh, and MSDN *annual
payments* to make. Hoo-fucking-ray for 'guidance' on how to lock
yourself further into crapware.
>3. Presents information in a useful format
Useful for whom? Let me guess.... the monopolist trying to lock you
further into crapware, maybe?
>4. Allows you to enter information in an easy and quick manner.
Glad to hear that Microsoft invented software and data entry.
>Different people have different sets of these requirements, with different
>priorities. My guess is that your priorities are (1), (4), (3), (2), and
>that Joe Q. Consumers are more likely (2) (1) (3) (4).
What's your point? No matter how you add it up, both me and Joe Q have
similar priorities: A) get rid of the predatory monopoly inhibiting
development and charging us disgusting amounts for the privilege, and B)
whatever the hell we think might work, regardless of how it affects
Microsoft's revenue stream.
It doesn't matter how you slice it; Joe Q. and I agree. A monopoly puts
(5) whatever locks you in further to crapware, ahead of all the others,
and they suppress competition so much that even *dreaming* of '1 through
4', above, is too much to ask.
As for the general concept of the ignorance of good interface design,
you've at least gotten close to the mark. Check out
http://www.iarchitect.com/shame.htm, they have some useful examples to
guide you.
Since this conversation started, I've done a little research on Quicken
2000/1. Its every bit as horrid as I thought; I'm going to recommend
Isys do a whole page on 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.lang.java.programmer,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sun cannot use Java for their servers!!
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 06:52:15 GMT
Hi,
Can anyone tell me the exact requirements for loading a jvm?
Do you require Classpath to be set before loading the jvm.
My code says Cannot load jvm unrecognized option
Code snippets are welcome.
thanks
void LoadJVM()
{
JavaVMOption options[2];
JavaVMInitArgs vm_args;
JavaVM *jvm;
JNIEnv *env;
long result;
jmethodID mid;
jfieldID fid;
jobject jobj;
jclass cls;
int asize;
options[0].optionString = ".";
options[1].optionString = "-Djava.compiler=NONE";
vm_args.version = JNI_VERSION_1_2;
vm_args.options = options;
vm_args.nOptions = 2;
vm_args.ignoreUnrecognized = JNI_FALSE;
result = JNI_CreateJavaVM(
&jvm,(void **)&env, &vm_args);
if(result == JNI_ERR ) {
printf("Error invoking the JVM");
return;
}
cls = env->FindClass("ArrayHandler");
if( cls == NULL ) {
printf("can't find class ArrayHandler\n");
return;
}
env->ExceptionClear();
mid=env->GetMethodID(cls, "<init>", "()V"); jobj=env->NewObject
(cls, mid);
fid=env->GetFieldID(cls, "arraySize", "I"); asize=env->GetIntField
(jobj, fid);
printf("size of array is %d",asize);
jvm->DestroyJavaVM();
}
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nik Simpson wrote:
> >
> > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Nik Simpson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Ok I have an app that will crash DOS, Windows 3.1, Windows
95, and
> > > > > Windows 98. But no one will let me try it on their NT
machine. I am
> > > > > writing a new one based on a utility program provided by an
OEM to be
> > > > > used to upgrade their Flash BIOS. It looks all a cracker
would have to
> > > > > do is steal administrator privaliges in order to wipe the
BIOS on an
> > NT
> > > > > based system. (He has to be root to do that on Linux. Same
difference)
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Send it me, I'll try it.
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Nik Simpson
> >
> > > Meet me face to face and we will discuss it. I live in Arizona,
but can
> > > meet either here or in Las Vegas.
> >
> > Chicken, consider your bluff well and truly called! Why on Earth
should I
> > travel to Arizona to obtain a mysterious piece of software that you
believe
> > will trash my system. If it exists at all, zip it up and email it
to me, it
> > can't be that big.
> >
> > --
> > Nik Simpson
> Because I don't know you and I have seen too many script kiddies who
> might use the code to do damage. If you can satisfy me that you are
only
> going to crash your own system, I will give you the name of the book
> where the code has been published. It caused a big flap six or seven
> years ago when it was first published. Nice to see nothing has been
> fixed in all that time.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 03:06:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>I don't think you're intelligent enough to realize that I was giving an
>example of a fast context menu, and not commenting on Notepad's UI at all.
I don't think you're a good enough writer to make the difference clear,
then.
>BTW: Notepad in Win2k is nicely functional, and does everything you need in
>a quick scratchpad.
That's what they said about Notepad on Windows 1.0, IIRC.
>> 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.
>
>Hmmm... Well, I'm a developer, and that's the question I needed to ask. Why
>would you need to implement a menu in HTML when the system can do it for you
>without that? The trick here is to produce a nice blend -- not write
>everything so that you can run it in a browser window by entering a URL.
>Remember: The browser is a display surface. That means one component of many
>in a functional UI.
No, it is not a component in a functional user *inter*face. It is a
viewing window with a paradigm which does not lend itself *at all* to
local control mechanisms and features. If you are a developer, and you
think using HTML, a browser, or a 'web interface' in your product is a
good idea, then you are a lousy developer. I'm sorry if that seems
brutal, but I've been trying to say it nicely (to others, if not to you)
for more than five years, and I'm getting a little frustrated.
The trick here is to not 'blend' anything at all. Build a REAL UI.
Standard MDI windows, regular old menu bars, boringly predictable
functionality from beginning to end. You aren't trying to grab their
attention; you're trying to enable efficient operation, and nothing
more.
http://www.iarchitect.com/shame.htm
STUDY IT LIKE ITS THE BIBLE AND YOU'VE JUST BEEN GIVEN THE LAST RITES.
>> 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.
>
>Nice insinuation. I've been programming all kinds of computers since 1980 --
>which means everything from the Vic20 to the Atari ST.
I really wish that would mean I could rely on the presumption that
you're not a complete fucking idiot, but experience contradicts me.
Stupid people have been programming about as long as smart people, when
it comes down to it.
[...]
>You were commenting on ease for the developer -- I explained that most
>development today is all about that. Put whatever spin on that you like; it
>doesn't change the fact that APIs, compilers etc. are all tools that make
>the developer's job easier, and allows them to solve wider and wider
>problems.
Luckily, none of that has a single tiny thing to do with any of my
comments. I explained that 'most development today' is crap. Deal with
it.
[...]
>Heck, why should I bother arguing this with you? You've not even used one of
>the apps which use a web interface.
I've used dozens of apps that use web interfaces. Some weren't even all
that terrible, I'll admit. But those were always and only the most
trivial ones. In the vast majority of cases, it is simply a stupid
idea.
>> 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.
>
>Perhaps because it's easy to use (for the USER, not the DEVELOPER)? Ever
>give that a thought?
Yea; I've thought about pigs flying, too. That doesn't make it an
effective solution to any arbitrary problem, nor a realistic
expectation, AFAIK.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: US v Microsoft book by NYT reporters, reviewed by D.Lindsey
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 03:12:54 -0400
Adding comp.os.linux.advocacy.... as the people read that group
can give VERY detailed information about how, contary to the spittle
from the Microsoft propaganda machine....Microsoft willfully IMPEDES
advancements in computer technology, and engages in VERY vicious
campaigns of OBSTRUCTION OF TRADE against any corporation which
doesn't choose to impede the technology according to Bill Gates' plans.
Howard Rothenburg wrote:
>
> ********
>
> From: "Duncan Lindsey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: US v Microsoft
> Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2000 07:19:25 -0700
>
> Poorly Debugged Set of Device Drivers
>
> The personal computer software industry has changed the modern world.
> At the beginning of the 1980s Japan was viewed as eclipsing the United
> States as the technology leader. Yet a new embryonic industry was
> about to change all this. The personal computer industry, led by a
> group of very talented and creative entrepreneurs, was emerging.
> Without question, Microsoft has been the premier leader of this
> industry in the decade of the 80s. In the first half of the 90s
> Microsoft repeated and built upon its premier leadership. Microsoft's
> success provided a foundation for the success of the personal computer
> industry and the many companies associated with itAOL, Sun, Dell,
> Gateway, Compaq, Adobe, Macromedia, Lotus, Apple, Intel, and others.
>
> In late 1994 a connection between personal computers and the Internet
> was forged by Mosaicthe first World Wide Web browser. During the next
> several years the personal computer industry would be fundamentally
> altered. This was an "inflection point" (or paradigm shift) as
> described by Andy Gove in Only the Paranoid Survive. Sensing an
> opportunity to unseat Microsoft as the premier software developer
> Netscape viewed its web browser as a new platform for software
> development. Marc Andreesen boasted that the Netscape browser platform
> with java technology would reduce Microsoft Windows to a "poorly
> debugged set of device drivers." The prevailing platform would be the
> Netscape browser.
>
> Without question, Microsoft was caught off guard by the rapid
> emergence of the Internet. When Microsoft finally "got it" Netscape
> had established a solid installed base of satisfied users. Netscape
> had Microsoft in its sights. With the help of other competitors of
> Microsoft it embarked on a campaign to unseat Microsoft and allow for
> new competition to determine technology supremacy.
>
> When Microsoft finally figured out what was happening they went into
> battle mode. What else would we expect in a free market competitive
> economy? Now the challenge was to see who would emerge victorious.
> Microsoft had some advantages. Although it was late to understand and
> develop browsing software technology, it did have a dominant position
> in the old (then current) operating system technology. The personal
> computer technology was changing rapidly. Either Microsoft would adapt
> to this new Internet technology or it would eventually perish. What
> were its options? It could build a browser that competed with
> Netscape and fight head to head. It did this. Microsoft knew that if
> they lost the browser war they would place the leadership position of
> their corporation at risk. But in this head to head browser war
> Microsoft was at a distinct disadvantage. After all, Netscape did not
> simply want to become the premier browser program, they wanted, with
> the help of rivals, to replace the operating system supremacy of
> Microsoft with browser technology that would become the new operating
> system platform for application software. In short, Netscape wanted to
> unseat Windows. Obviously, Microsoft didn't want to unseat itself. But
> in the end that is what Microsoft had to do.
>
> Netscape set out to combine Internet browsing software technology with
> java and API components that would allow it to replace the major
> operating system components previously provided by the Windows
> operating system. The center of gravity for the personal computer
> software world was shifting from the desktop to the World Wide Web.
> Microsoft realized that to insure the survival of their operating
> system, they would have to include browser software components into
> the Windows operating system.
>
> The struggle between two powerful technology companies was viewed as a
> "browser war," but was really a struggle for control of the operating
> system platform. When Netscape began including operating system
> components and rival java technology into the browser it crossed the
> invisible line between the browser and the operating system platform.
> The line is not always distinct and clear. But Netscape's intention
> was clear.
>
> When Microsoft countered by integrating browsing software technology
> into its operating system it simply followed a natural course. In
> fact, no modern operating system can fail to include Internet
> connection technology.
>
> The titans of the modern software industry engaged in fierce
> competition. As earlier history had established, operating systems
> are a natural monopoly. It was likely that only one would survive this
> clash. The success of modern capitalism is borne out of this
> competition. Microsoft held the then current monopoly for personal
> computer operating systems (leaving aside Apple, Palm, Linux, and
> Solarus). Netscape began with the monopoly of installed users of
> browsers.
>
> Prodded by Microsoft's bitter competitors, Netscape began to cry foul
> when the lead they held in terms of dominating the platform for
> connection to the Internet was declining. Netscape had the political
> connections and access to the US Justice Department. Netscape's
> lawyers drafted their 300 page view of unfair competition and put it
> in the hands of sympathetic listeners in the Justice Department and
> was able to provoke an anti-trust action. Instead of relying on civil
> action for unfair competition, Netscape was able, with its many allies
> in the software industry, to convince the U.S. Department of Justice
> to challenge Microsoft's fairness.
>
> U.S. v. Microsoft by Joel Brinkley and Steve Lohr provides a report of
> the government's case that is sympathetic to the loser of the
> technology battle. It is hard not to have sympathy with the underdog.
> The advantage of the judicial system is that it allows both sides to
> present their case. Brinkley and Lohr portend to be neutral observers
> but consistently present a view that is more concerned with courtroom
> theatrics than the difficult legal and technological issues. The
> government's chief litigator, Mr. Boies, whom they see as the Michael
> Jordon of attorneys, enthralls Brinkey and Lohr. But hopefully the
> trial outcome for a modern major U.S. corporation should not be
> determined by the courtroom theatrics of a fierce litigator.
>
> Netscape beat Microsoft out of the starting gate in the development of
> Internet browsers. When Microsoft finally figured out the importance
> of the Internet, they integrated their browser into the Windows
> operating system. They did this, in part, to gain a competitive
> advantage over Netscape. But also, they did it because incorporating
> browser functions into Windows was the next logical step in the
> evolution of an operating systemany operating system. All major
> operating systems have done the same, including Sun Microsystems,
> Unix, Linux and Apple. Truly, Microsoft did not have a choice.
>
> Certainly, Microsoft has been an aggressive and even fierce
> competitor, as have its chief rivals, Sun Microsystems, AOL, Oracle,
> Apple, IBM and others. It should be noted that Sun competes with
> Microsoft by "giving away" a complete set of application software,
> Star Office, that it paid millions for. Sun's main purpose would seem
> to be to harm sales of Microsoft's Office suite. Where are the
> government anti-trust busters? This is about as clear a case of
> predatory pricing as one could ever find. It is also worth noting that
> neither Sun nor Apple has provided anywhere near the access to their
> operating system that Microsoft has to Windows. Sun's Solaris and
> MacOS are far more closed and provide far fewer add-on applications
> than does Windows.
>
> Today, Microsoft's competitorsSun, Apple, Oracle, IBM, AOL, and
> othersare strong and healthy. The only difference is that for the
> first time the Justice Department has taken sides. Unfortunately, it
> is not a pursuit of justice, but a politically motivated assault on a
> company by its competitors, using the Justice Department as the tool.
> Sun, AOL, IBM, Apple, Oracle, Netscape and the others have cheered and
> encouraged the assault, mustering whatever political pressure they can
> to maintain and intensify it.
>
> Microsoft probably overstepped the law in its fierce competition with
> Netscape, and for this it should be punished. But the punishment
> should fit the crime. Microsoft has produced some of the best products
> available, selling them at very affordable prices. Today, most
> Americans, indeed most people in the world, use their software. It is
> not an overstatement to say that these products have improved the
> lives of millions of people.
>
> On balance, Microsoft has made an historic contribution to the world,
> doing more to advance our use of technology than probably any other
> companry in recent times. We must weigh its enormous contribution
> against its relatively minor infractions. It should be noted that
> after years of intensive scrutiny and the unparalleled surveillance
> provided by email, that little compelling evidence is provided. There
> is certainly no "smoking gun." One wonders how many of Microsoft's
> competitors could come through the review it underwent less tainted.
>
> Throughout the world today virtually all who use a personal computer
> are using core software developed by Microsoft. This software is both
> excellent and inexpensive. But more important, it is constantly being
> improved. And that is what is at risk in the government's politically
> sponsored assault on one of America's greatest corporations. What is
> clear in US v. Microsoft is the absence of concern for consumersthey
> are at best an afterthought. But shouldn't they be at the center of
> the case?
>
> The debate about abortion often polarizes into those who support the
> "right to life" and those who are "pro-choice." The terms and
> perspectives of each group frame their understanding. Brinkley and
> Lohr frame their view of the case from a partisan perspective that
> supports the Justice Department's case. But they take their lead from
> the judge who, throughout the trial, seems more interested in
> punishing Microsoft for having his earlier decision overruled by the
> Appeals Court than seeking the truth. This time the judge seeks to
> avoid being overturned by denying Microsoft access to the Appeals
> Court. In the interest of basic fairness, lets hope he is not
> successful.
>
> One can only hope that Microsoft receives a more balanced hearing at
> the Appeals level than Judge Jackson provided. After all, this is one
> of the premier technology corporations in our nations history. I
> suspect the authors prepared their book on the Microsoft software
> technology that won its position through much hard work, risk and
> dedication. If Microsoft is destroyed we all have a lot to lose. Think
> of this the next time you fire up your computer.
>
> Duncan Lindsey is a Professor in the School of Public Policy and
> Social Research at UCLA.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 03:22:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Donovan Rebbechi in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 20:00:19 -0700, Simon Cooke wrote:
>
>>You were commenting on ease for the developer -- I explained that most
>>development today is all about that. Put whatever spin on that you like; it
>>doesn't change the fact that APIs, compilers etc. are all tools that make
>>the developer's job easier, and allows them to solve wider and wider
>>problems.
>
>I'm just going to chime in and say that what's good for the developer is
>often what's good for the user, since making it "easy for the developer"
>means making it easier for the developer to write software that meets
>the user's requirements.
Spoken like a developer. This tired justification will work, too, for
at least the next few months. Sooner than you expect, though, the
market will be competitive again, and then this kind of silliness is
simply not going to cut it.
>I'll bring up a UNIX example, since that's what I program in. Qt not only makes
>life easier for the writers of GUI software than say Xlib, but it is also true
>that Qt applications will look and feel nicer from a users perspective.
Look and feel isn't about 'nice'; its about expedient, efficient, and
effective. I don't really care about what library you use, as long as
it matches the *applications* requirements in supporting the *end user*.
I literally do not care how easy or hard it makes the developer's job.
If you want to say "then the user won't get applications", I'm willing
to take my chances, because I know that's an empty protestation.
>Also, if the software makes the developers more productive, it means that
>the development time and hence the price is reduced. An office suite
>written in assembly language would cost so much to develop that it would be
>impossible to price it competitively.
So don't write it in assembler; what does this have to do with user
interface and functionality?
[...]
>I love the way Max is suddenly an expert on "technical design", to the point
>where he starts lecturing experienced developers. Ask him any elementary
>question about OO design if you want a good laugh.
I am so so so hurt by your pointing out I'm not a programmer.
I 'suddenly' became an expert in "technical design" starting about
fifteen years ago. It doesn't take knowledge of OO design (and that has
precisely *what* to do with user interfaces?) to know that most
'experienced developers' have their head up their ass when it comes to
building a practical and efficient user interface. Save your ridicule
for someone who gives a damn.
--
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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:22:48 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"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...
>
> I'm certainly not a huge fan of Notes; neither are most Notes users.
> Having seen the results in both medium and large companies, I'll tell
> you, again with no fear of contradiction, that Outlook is to Notes as a
> pile of dogshit is to a pile of potting soil.
>
Notes client is harder to use
Notes client crashes more often
Compared to Outlook 2000, Notes Client R5 sucks ass...
------------------------------
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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 03:25:23 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >There's no way anyone *can* contradict you with examples, going from the
>way
>> >you debate.
>>
>> Which is to say you have no counter-examples, I believe. Nor could you;
>> you cannot defend monopolization by imagining they have a superior
>> product. If they had a superior product, they wouldn't need to act
>> anti-competitively to maintain their market share, now would they?
>
>If Outlook is such a pile of crap, why are a whole bucketload of people
>trying to emulate it for Linux?
Because they *have* to. Believe me, its not because anybody *wants* to.
You don't seem to understand what makes it crap, or what they're
attempting to 'emulate'.
--
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
******************************