Linux-Advocacy Digest #94, Volume #29 Wed, 13 Sep 00 13:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (Seán Ó Donnchadha)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Re: OS choice ("Chad Maine")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... ("Stuart Fox")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Seán Ó Donnchadha <[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 11:51:07 -0400
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>(2) You're a FUCKWIT. Get used to it.
>
>I'm starting to get to you, aren't I? That happens to a lot of people.
>It's my fault, really.
>
Yes, it is.
>
>I have so little patience for stupid ideas and
>ignorance that I often seem like an extremist flake, when you first
>encounter my ranting.
>
No, you just seem like a troll, although certainly not the typical
one. You're also a pompous, arrogant asshole.
>
>Until you try to refute my supporting reasoning and opinions.
>
Max, your "reasoning and opinions" amount to a little bag of tricks
and a great big bag of bullshit. You think nobody notices that you get
increasingly offensive as your bullshit wears thin and you've got no
experience or knowledge to fall back on? Please. Your argument pattern
is as predictable as your ignorance of the argument topic.
>
>Then you get frustrated and angry because it isn't as
>easy as you'd like it to be.
>
There's no way to reason with someone who refuses to consider anyone
else's point of view and wouldn't have the intelligence to evaluate it
anyway. And don't start with the "I consider every *REASONABLE*
argument" bullshit, because that's all it is - bullshit.
You simply get your kicks out of annoying the hell out of people.
You're a troll, Max, and the only reason so many people get so pissed
is that you're an asshole to boot. Most trolls are easy enough to
ignore, but you're so offensive and have the time and stamina to
generate so much bullshit per day that it gets frustrating.
As for Simon not being able to "refute" your bullshit - well, Pete
Sampras will never be able to serve past a brick wall, but that
doesn't make the brick wall a great tennis player.
------------------------------
From: <[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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:46:17 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> >
> > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> > > >
> > > > Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> > > >
> > > > > > Consider this example:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A man is an experience meatcutter and noe runs a meatpacking
house.
> > > > This
> > > > > > man is also an instructor in a local community college. At the
> > college
> > > > > > besides being an instructor he is also the chairman of the
supplies
> > > > > > procurement committee for the culinary arts department. That
> > committee
> > > > > > select the appropriate sources to supply the various needs of
the
> > > > culinary
> > > > > > arts department. By the early efforts of this man, his packing
> > house is
> > > > the
> > > > > > sole supplier of meats to the culinary arts department. Over
the
> > years
> > > > the
> > > > > > courses taught have been shaped to fit the cuts of meat that his
> > company
> > > > > > supplies, including some speciality meats that only his company
> > > > provides.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Does this man have a conflict of interest?
> > > > >
> > > > > The analogy doesn't fit the KDE case, so I refuse to answer your
> > > > > question,
> > > > > because you will try to use that as "proof" of your position.
> > > >
> > > > Thank you, for admitting your failure to provide honest, straight
> > answers
> > > > when it would tend to, in your view, hurt your position as it
appears
> > that
> > > > you have done before.
> > >
> > > Uh? Excuse me, but I have admitted no such thing, and your attempt to
> > > fool
> > > anyone into believing I did does nothing but show you as a troll.
> > >
> > > I said specifically that the analogy doesn't fit the KDE situation.
> > > I refuse to state a position regarding a flawed analogy, because I
know
> > > you will just assume the analogy was right and hit me in the head,
> > > applying my comment to the flawed analogy as if I accepted it was
true.
> >
> > A straight forward and honest answer to this exaple would have been,
yes.
> > But instead you refused to answer; because as you stated, 'because you
will
> > try to use that as "proof" of your position'. That means that you
feared
> > the repercussions on your position of a "yes" answer and you knew that a
> > "no" answer was not possible. Your wording of your statement implies
that
> > your willing to shape your answers to fit into your point instead of the
> > truth.
> >
> > > > If you are afraid that this example that I provided
> > > > would could be used as evidence against your position then, perhaps
I
> > > > accidently cut too close to the bone. I intended to use this as an
> > example
> > > > of a conflict of interest and nothing more.
> > >
> > > I just said I believe your analogy to be flawed, nothing else. If
> > > to you that's an acceptance of guilt, you are unable to read.
> >
> > That is your error. That example was not intended as an anology of
> > anything, it intended as an example of a conflict of interest and
nothing
> > more. Up to that time there was some disagreement by various
individulals
> > in this discussion as to just what does "a conflict of interest" means.
I
> > provided a concrete example of one for the purpose permiting us all to
agree
> > on the meaning of the term. There was no ulterior motive intended with
that
> > example. That is was it was and example and not an anaology.
>
> Ok, so let's just accept that I will not emit an opinion about it.
> It's my right.
Accepted.
Let us also accept that you would have been better served by not commenting
on the example in the first place.
------------------------------
From: Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E.
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:10:07 -0300
[EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió:
> > Ok, so let's just accept that I will not emit an opinion about it.
> > It's my right.
>
> Accepted.
>
> Let us also accept that you would have been better served by not commenting
> on the example in the first place.
Whatever. I suppose you would have held that against me, too.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 16:02:20 GMT
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:06:59 +0200, Lars Träger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It appears that on Fri, 08 Sep 2000 11:45:56 GMT, in
>> comp.os.linux.advocacy "Shocktrooper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"ZnU" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> I'd guess it was done at least in part to avoid a lawsuit from Apple.
>> >>
>> >> Many of Microsoft's interface decisions over the years look like they
>> >> were made on this basis, which is part of the reason Windows gets so
>> >> much wrong; Apple got things right, Microsoft insisted on stealing
>> >> things, but had to settle for a less-than-optimal solution to avoid
>> >> harassment by Apple lawyers.
>> >
>> >Yes, do not want to get in trouble with "apple lawyers" for the single
>> >button mouse.. MS has given us an elegant solution of maximized control
>> >with the two button, scroll wheel mouse..
>> >
>> >Luckily, MS is not as rapid, and has not gone after logitech, and
>> >others.. so now we have a wealth of non-single button mice for sale.
>
>Thanks Scmocky for the excelent example. The Xerox mouse had three
>buttons, and was copied for use on X Window and the Mousesystems mouse
>for PCs/DOS. Apple did some research and used only one button to keep it
>simple. And then Microsoft "invented" the two button mouse.
Are you sure? Both Atari and Commodore had 2 button mice. If
M$ "invented" the 2 button mouse then it was one of those
"tree falling in a forest" things where either noone was there
to notice or noone cared (or both).
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a
desktop platform
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 16:03:28 GMT
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 11:45:14 -0400, Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Brian Langenberger wrote:
>>
>>
>> I recall hearing someplace that Apple had a patent on the one button
>> mouse and the easy solution for PCs was simply to have more than one
>> button on them. Such a patent would've expired by now, of course,
>> but that's just what I remember.
>>
>> Perhaps someone could confirm or disprove this for me if only
>> for my own curiosity's sake.
>
>Apple took a LOT of flak for their one button mouse, and they still do.
>The two button mouse was the path of least resistance.
>
>There may or may not have been a patent; I don't know.
...it's also easy enough to emulate a 3 button mouse with a
2 button mouse without falling back on the keyboard (which
rather defeats the point IMO).
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: "Chad Maine" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OS choice
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 16:04:17 GMT
I guess that's the point of Linux. It can be both. I can have a great GUI,
but then pull up a term and go to work. It can be for newbies and old
school hackerz. If you keep it from the newbies, your just another OS snob.
BTW, I'm writing this in Outlook Express in Win4Lin in Linux. I just happen
to like Outlook Express as a newsreader.
Ingemar Lundin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:QnNv5.686$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> well in that case you're on collision course with the father of
> linux, -Thorvalds that have said in various intervjues that
> Linux will compete with Windows on the desktop within the next couple of
> years
>
> /IL
>
> "Greenwood Packing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:8po5fc$ibm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Why is it necessary for people who favor Linux or any UNIX like OS
to
> > fight with those who use Windows? More over why is it necessary to warp
> > Linux into something that everyone can use? Wouldn't it be better for
both
> > to exist and for those who want more from their computer to use *NIX? I
> > happen to feel that Linux isn't for everyone. I would like to see maybe
> one
> > or two distributions that allow for a nice easy install, this will give
> > people who honestly want to try it out a chance. But I don't like the
idea
> > of dummbing the system down so everyone can use it. Shouldn't Linux
people
> > be promoting awareness not only of the OS they use but for the computer
it
> > runs on? Isn't separating the user from the computer with a GUI and
doing
> > all the configuration work for him/her a bad idea for *NIX? I was once a
> > newbie although I didn't have a nice fancy GUI install, and everyone
needs
> > to start somewhere but if you start and have everything spoon fed to you
> do
> > you get anywhere? Any input on these subjects would be greatly
appreciated
> > but please post your replies to this NG.
> >
> >
> > Thank you all for your honesty.
> >
> > LR
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
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 12:10:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> You're delusional. That 'viable from an OEM perspective' is just your
>> circular reasoning. In point of fact, the 'last 2 years or so' is about
>> how long Microsoft has been under indictment for breaking the law by
>> raising barriers to entry by alternative OSes. You think its mere
>> coincidence that this just 'happens' to correspond to the time when
>> specialty OEMs started gaining enough ground that 'the public' started
>> hearing about them? Of course you do.
>
>I'm not talking about specialty OEM's. I'm talking about Dell, Gateway,
>Compaq, IBM, etc...
>
>If you seriously believe that Linux had many users asking OEM's for it more
>than 2-3 years ago, you're the one that's delusional. It simply was not
>ready to be a pre-installed OEM product before that.
I guess you are simply incapable of comprehending the concept of
'circular reasoning'. Do you really think that Dell would be outfitting
workstations (still no desktops) with Linux if Microsoft weren't in
court all over the place? The 'specialty OEMs' "gaining enough ground"
is, BTW, what prompts Top 10 OEMs like Dell and Gateway to support
Linux. It really doesn't make any sense, the way you insist on
second-guessing market activity. No, Linux wasn't supported before;
yes, it is supported (somewhat) now. I'm not willing to buy into your
naive assumptions about why that is; there's far too many ways in
evidence of double-checking what commercial issues make that the case.
You're 'it simply was not ready to be a pre-installed product' is rather
silly; neither is W2K. ;-)
[...]
>> "At trial, Microsoft attempted to rebut the presumption of monopoly
>> power with evidence of both putative constraints on its ability to
>> exercise such power and behavior of its own that is supposedly
>> inconsistent with the possession of monopoly power. None of the
>> purported constraints, however, actually deprive Microsoft of "the
>> ability (1) to price substantially above the competitive level and (2)
>> to persist in doing so for a significant period without erosion by new
>> entry or expansion." IIA Phillip E. Areeda, Herbert Hovenkamp & John L.
>> Solow, Antitrust Law ¶ 501, at 86 (1995) (emphasis in original); see
>> Findings ¶¶ 57-60. Furthermore, neither Microsoft's efforts at technical
>> innovation nor its pricing behavior is inconsistent with the possession
>> of monopoly power. Id. ¶¶ 61-66.
>
>It was only theorized that MS could price above the competitive leve.
It is only possible to theorize what competitive levels are, when there
isn't competitive pressures keeping prices down. IOW, "You're right;
that's why they were convicted and have practically no chance of
succeeding in their appeal."
>Windows has always been priced similarly to commercial competition. It
>certainly has not been proven that their market would not have eroded if
>they had done so for any length of time.
Well, you'll have to take that up with the federal judge; TBH, I'd trust
his assessment over yours. For one thing, he seems to have a grasp of
what 'control prices and exclude competition' means, and doesn't seem to
have any delusions concerning market behavior. Increasing prices
*always* reduces sales, even for a monopoly. Considering their main
competition is free with unlimited licensing, it appears that Microsoft
charging more than three or four dollars per copy constitutes
exorbitantly high prices in comparison to alternatives. It isn't the
market that was being referred to by the term 'erosion', above, but
Microsoft's ability to maintain prices above competitive levels. That
means what they would get if there were real competition in a free
market, not just what those who would *like* to compete are charging in
the monopoly market. They simply price against MS, not against
'competition'. If Microsoft doubled the price of Windows for their
largest customers to the tune of millions of dollars, would it in any
way make Win32 less necessary to them?
Be careful how you answer, Erik; MS has already done this twice in the
last four years, AFAIK.
>> "Even if Microsoft's rebuttal had attenuated the presumption created by
>> the prima facie showing of monopoly power, corroborative evidence of
>> monopoly power abounds in this record: Neither Microsoft nor its OEM
>> customers believe that the latter have - or will have anytime soon -
>> even a single, commercially viable alternative to licensing Windows for
>> pre-installation on their PCs. Id. ¶¶ 53-55; cf. Rothery, 792 F.2d at
>> 219 n.4 ("we assume that economic actors usually have accurate
>> perceptions of economic realities"). Moreover, over the past several
>> years, Microsoft has comported itself in a way that could only be
>> consistent with rational behavior for a profit-maximizing firm if the
>> firm knew that it possessed monopoly power, and if it was motivated by a
>> desire to preserve the barrier to entry protecting that power. Findings
>> ¶¶ 67, 99, 136, 141, 215-16, 241, 261-62, 286, 291, 330, 355, 393, 407.
>
>Strange how, not 3 months after this statement was made, at least 3 major
>OEM's announced product lines with Linux. I guess the OEM's changed their
>mind about having a "viable alternative" "anytime soon". It certainly
>proves that both MS and the OEM's were wrong, and thus the testimony was
>inaccurate.
LOL. You really are thick-headed, aren't you? So Microsoft's
conviction for monopolizing causing the market to open up is proof that
Microsoft wasn't monopolizing?
[...continued circular reasoning snipped...]
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 17:14:18 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >In article <8pnihr$oe9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >Well they have got to the stage where ME & Win2K share a common driver
> >model - and before anyone claims that means Win95 drivers running on
> >Win2K or some other such nonsense, it means the WinNT driver model has
> >been pushed down to th consumer OS. Hopefully that means we'll see
> >better drivers for the consumer edition (and of course that means more
> >drivers for Win2K)
>
> I thought they'd gotten to that point with Win98 and NT; that's what
> they announced, anyway. Now its ME and W2K? Is there *anything* that
> actually is as Microsoft announces?
Where did they announce that? I don't recall them announcing it anywhere,
mainly because I don't think they did.
------------------------------
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 12:22:28 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"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
Maybe for you. Not for any of the enterprise customers I've worked with
in the last five years.
>Notes client crashes more often
Maybe for you. Not for any of the enterprise customers I've worked with
in the last five years.
>Compared to Outlook 2000, Notes Client R5 sucks ass...
Maybe for you. Not for any of the enterprise customers I've worked with
in the last five years.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 08:57:45 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:OHEv5.75382$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8pmriq$hvi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:8pmn38$fo1$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:8pmmhq$1o0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > > > Seán Ó Donnchadha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > On Mon, 11 Sep 2000 23:23:09 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> Using Explorer is an option setting in the Registry.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >What is the Registry option setting?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On NT it's the Shell value in the following key:
> > > > > {HKLM|HKCU}Software\Microsoft\Windows NT\CurrentVersion\Winlogon
> > > > >
> > > > > In Win9x I don't know what the registry setting is, but the old
> Shell
> > > > > value in SYSTEM.INI is still supported.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >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?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The Start menu wouldn't still be there; it's provided by the first
> > > > > instance of EXPLORER.EXE run on behalf of the logged-in user. The
> > > > > appearance of the buttons and such wouldn't change as it's
provided
> by
> > > > > the USER subsystem. The border size has always been adjustable in
> the
> > > > > control panel.
> > > >
> > > > Which is just what I suspected, while you can use the program
manager
> > the
> > > > appearance will *not* be as it was with WIndows 3.0 and before.
Unix
> on
> > > the
> > > > other hand can permit this with its older interfaces. The border
> size,
> > > > which control panel applet of WIndows 95 can control that? Which
tab
> if
> > > > appropriate?
> > >
> > > He already answered this:
> > >
> > > Control Panel -> Display -> Appearance -> select "Active Window
Border"
> > > under item and change the value in the Size spin control.
> >
> > With the WIndows 3.x, 2.x, or 1.x appearance?
>
> You asked this:
>
> >>. The border size,
> > > which control panel applet of WIndows 95 can control that? Which tab
if
> > > appropriate?
>
> I answered it.
The overall discussion was about ability or in reality the inability of
current Windows to provide Windows the appearance and behavior of User
interface of prior version of Windows for someone who may like the old ways.
Just like unix can and does provide the ability for the user to select a
shell or a windows manager the he wishes which will permit him to work
across versions in the environment of his choosing.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 09:12:22 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:dkGv5.1307$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "lyttlec" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >Java vs. anything MS.
>
> Interesting that Sun has resisted all efforts to standardize Java, despite
> making promises to do so.
>
> > GPL vs. DMCA
>
> GPL falls under DMCA, since GPL is copyrighted.
>
> >Notice that all the items on the left increase your freedom compared to
> >the things on the right.
>
> Not true. GPL specifically denies me the freedom to sell a closed source
> program. It restricts my freedom to use *MY OWN COPYRIGHTED CODE* in any
> way I see fit.
>
> > For example Standard HTML reaches a broader
> > audiance than either IE HTML or Netscape HTML and is in fact easier to
> > write and more secure.
>
> Uhh... a broader, but smaller audience. When 90+% of the internet
> population is using either IE or Netscape, "broader" is a bit of a
fallacy.
> Most Standard HTML 4 simply won't work with Netscape and has a much better
> chance of working with IE. CSS for instance.
Are you suggesting that IE and/or Netscape can not handle and document
offered in Standard HTML? So by offering a html document in just that
version of HTML someone is locking out the users of those browsers?
------------------------------
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 12:26:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >Want some credibility Max?
>> >Stop USING windows to BASH windows, dumb ass.
>>
>> I'm a big fan of bash, actually. The only reason I can see that
>> Microsoft doesn't make it a standard part of Windows is that it provides
>> too much interoperability and might threaten their monopoly.
>
>Please expound on your knowledge of bash, so far I see none.
Gee, professor; you didn't say anything about a pop quiz!
I'm tempted to just copy and paste the man page, but only for
entertainment purposes. I could care less if you have seen any
knowledge of bash in my posts. Get a grip.
>And it doesn't change the fact that you are ironically supporting Windows
>with each post in which you are attempting to bash windows.
We only pay for software licenses when we acquire the software, JS/PL.
I'm not 'supporting Windows' in any way by continuing to use the OS that
came on the Dell laptop I use and which is mandated by my employer. Get
a life, man.
>Your like a guy that shows up at a "Bash the Japanese Cars Rally" in a
>Toyota.
>
>> Want some credibility, 'JS/PL'? Get yourself a real name, dickhead.
>
>I told you - it's John Smith the patent lawyer, now write it down.
I've already got all your lies archived, 'JS/PL', that's not what I
asked about.
But just in case (and because it will be entertaining): Please expound
on your knowledge of patent law, so far I see none.
--
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
******************************
