Linux-Advocacy Digest #95, Volume #29 Wed, 13 Sep 00 14:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: US v Microsoft book by NYT reporters, reviewed by D.Lindsey ("sandrews")
Re: OS choice ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
("sandrews")
Thank you. ("Greenwood Packing")
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)
OO one more thing. ("Greenwood Packing")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. (Roberto
Alsina)
Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised.... (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 12:35:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"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.
Only according to Microsoft press releases.
>> GPL vs. DMCA
>
>GPL falls under DMCA, since GPL is copyrighted.
DMCA falls under GPL, since copyrighted software is licensed to
developers.
>>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.
Oh, jeez. Not the 'GPL denies freedom' bullshit, again. How does it
restrict your freedom to use your code in any way you see fit, when
you're the one who has to place it under GPL? If you want to sell *YOUR
OWN COPYRIGHTED CODE* as closed source, I'd suggest not putting it under
GPL. Of course, the fact that YOUR freedom is entirely NOT the issue,
but rather the freedom of those who are USING your code, entirely
escapes you.
>> 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.
Not when 'broader' is 100%.
>Most Standard HTML 4 simply won't work with Netscape and has a much better
>chance of working with IE. CSS for instance.
Sounds like HTML 4 wouldn't be very 'standard' then, doesn't it?
>> Tex and Latex give you more control over the quality and appearance of
>> your documents than HTML. If you are targeting the print media, that is
>> the way to go.
>
>HTML is a subset of SGML. SGML most certainly doesn't have the same
>problems.
SGML isn't anything more than "hey, if you embed tags in a text stream,
you can, like, *do* stuff with it." It doesn't have any problems
because it doesn't provide any solutions, by itself.
You're getting to be quite the little troll, Erik. I'd suggest you back
away, slowly, or I'm going to have to spank you. This ankle-biting is
for kindergarten; you're supposed to present reasoned arguments of your
opinion in your posts, not just empty contentions and meaningless
protestations and ignorance in defense of criminal behavior.
--
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: "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: US v Microsoft book by NYT reporters, reviewed by D.Lindsey
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:41:08 -0500
Crossposted-To:
talk.politics.misc,alt.politics,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
In article <2HGv5.1308$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > From: "Duncan Lindsey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
>
> This illustrates a key part of the US vs MS trial that was ignored by
> the court.
>
> The court was acting under the premise that MS was using it's OS
> Monopoly to gain a Monopoly in a totally new market called "Internet
> browsing". However, as this quote clearly indicates, it wasn't a new
> market at all. Netscape was trying to compete in the OS market with
> the browser, which essentially invalidates the anti-trust argument
> (using one monopoly to gain another in a seperate market).
>
when did Netscape OS come out, I missed that one!
> Unfortunately, MS can't really make this argument for at least two
> reasons:
>
> 1) It is still denying that it's a monopoly, arguing this would be
> seen as
> admission that it was one.
> 2) Even if it admits a monopoly, the admission that the browser could
> unseat MS could seriously effect it's stock prices and give the
> platform much more credence than MS wants.
>
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: OS choice
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 16:40:43 GMT
In article <8po5fc$ibm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Greenwood Packing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Why is it necessary for people who favor Linux or any UNIX like OS
to
> fight with those who use Windows? More over why is it necessary to
warp
> Linux into something that everyone can use? [snip]
Only thing worse than that would be trying to warp a single-user,
GUI-based, proprietary PC O/S into a server....
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "sandrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The internet was built on WIndow 95? (was Re: How low can they go...?)
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:51:55 -0500
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> sandrews wrote:
>>
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> (Chris Kelly) wrote:
>> > On Tue, 12 Sep 2000 18:44:44 -0400, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>neJ wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> On Fri, 8 Sep 2000 15:57:57 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >Windows in any form could quite easily be replaced for client
>> >>> >hosts by any of a number of operating system, including unix.
>> >>>
>> >>> Then why hasn't it?
>> >>
>> >>Actually, EVERYTHING you now see on the internet was FIRST
>> >>developed on Unix.
>> >
>> > Yep, and it shows:
>> >
>> > http://www.tolstoy.com/web.html
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Yep, that`s why the internet functions and works, If m$ developed
>> the internet I shutter to think of the hugh grotesque cluster fuck it
>> would have been. It defintly wouldn`t be alive and kicking now.
>
> You would have pull-down menus of every possible IP address in the
> world.
>
Yep and it would include just one www.microsoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Greenwood Packing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Thank you.
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:07:01 -0400
Thank you all for the great posts so far, I look forward to reading the rest
of them.
------------------------------
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 13:10:21 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Yea, and Microsoft 'sells' millions of copies of Windows. You'll notice
>> I asked for examples of this technology being used *in practice* _to
>> achieve any benefit_. I'm frankly not at all interested in a couple
>> small-time companies trying to *sell* stuff; prove it works in real life
>> usage, or save your breath.
>
>Of course. Nothing I say, no matter if I met your current requirements or
>not, would be acceptable to you. You'd just change your requirements like
>you're doing right now.
I might change the way I explain why a hammer falls to the ground when
dropped, but that won't change the way gravity works, Erik. I'm sorry
you can't understand why what Microsoft did was illegal. I'd be happy
to continue trying to explain it, if you showed some inkling of being
able to even try to understand it. But I'm afraid anti-trust is, in the
end, too abstract for you to comprehend, at least until you're willing
to put some effort into it.
>> Its certainly not a very common practice, nor are there very many
>> companies using this approach. Hell, there were more than a hundred
>> 'developers' trying to sell Excel 'add ons' in the early 90s, and they
>> were just *spreadsheets*, without any real interoperability issues. I
>> don't want theoretical protestations of innocence, I want SOLUTIONS;
>> time-tested, widely implemented, and unquestionably beneficial. Perhaps
>> you'll just write it off as personal bias, but I honestly and seriously
>> doubt you're going to be able to find any. In which case I'd prefer you
>> stop going on and on with these empty protestations of innocence and
>> ignorance.
>
>I'd prefer you didn't backpeddle and change your argument when proven wrong.
I'd prefer you got your head out of your ass. I haven't backpeddled or
changed my argument one iota; I asked for demonstration of people
gaining benefit from MS's wondrous technology which makes ILOVEYOU
possible, and you pointed to two companies trying to sell Office
add-ons. It might have at least made sense, you could have *pretended*
it was a valid point, had you provided some documentation of any
success, or maybe even the real-world examples familiar to the vast
majority of the market which I asked for. As it is, you're pissing into
the wind, and I'm getting bored watching you.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:10:45 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>
>> 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?
>
>Well, I prefer to start from this assumption instead of starting from
>the assumption that TT would sue Harmony knowing Harmony had not
>broken the law. You know, innocent until actually doing something?
I prefer to have no assumptions at all. And while you might want to
pretend that it is a matter of Troll Tech being innocent until actually
doing something, the reason the issue comes up is because Troll Tech
didn't seem to feel that way about Harmony.
>> [...]
>> >> 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.
>
>Yeah, sure.
I'll bet you still don't even know what infringement is, or how (or if!)
it differs from anti-trust.
--
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: "Greenwood Packing" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: OO one more thing.
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:11:25 -0400
I'm not at all for holding Linux from the newbies as I feel that maybe the
newbies should learn how to use it better. Perhaps my choice of words is
poor. What I mean to say is I think newbies using Linux is great, many of my
freinds have recently gotten involved with it and I make sure I go out of my
way to help them. However I think that when they learn the OS they should
know how it works, why it works and how to configure it, not how to have it
spoon fed so to speak with a GUI client.
------------------------------
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 14:25:52 -0300
"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
> >>
> >> 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?
> >
> >Well, I prefer to start from this assumption instead of starting from
> >the assumption that TT would sue Harmony knowing Harmony had not
> >broken the law. You know, innocent until actually doing something?
>
> I prefer to have no assumptions at all. And while you might want to
> pretend that it is a matter of Troll Tech being innocent until actually
> doing something, the reason the issue comes up is because Troll Tech
> didn't seem to feel that way about Harmony.
I'm sure you can show me the actions TT took against Harmony.
> >> [...]
> >> >> 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.
> >
> >Yeah, sure.
>
> I'll bet you still don't even know what infringement is, or how (or if!)
> it differs from anti-trust.
Since we gonna drag unrelated things in, I bet you still believe
everything
you can't see without mechanical help is abstract.
--
Roberto Alsina (KDE developer, MFCH)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Government's Decision to Use Microsoft
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 12:41:25 -0500
"Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:yqJv5.679$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i meddelandet
> news:WXsv5.1103$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > http://www.radium.ncsc.mil/tpep/library/rainbow/5200.28-STD.txt
> > "The security mechanisms of the ADP system shall be tested and found to
> work
> > as claimed in the system documentation. A team of individuals who
> > thoroughly understand the specific implementation of the TCB shall
subject
> > its design documentation, source code, and object code to thorough
> analysis
> > and testing."
> >
> > This is taken from the TSEC C2 Orange Book requirments. Note that in
> order
> > to get C2, the source code must be inspected by government security
> experts.
> >
>
> but that is refering to "trusted computing base" (oh i just love
buerocratic
> mumbo-jumbo) portion of the system...does it really mean the whole source
> code?
> (in the case of windows 2000, about 35 million lines of code)
It's impossible to determine if the security is used without reviewing the
entire code base.
------------------------------
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: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:26:58 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribió:
>>
>> 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.
>
>Only one click, actually.
Still haven't a clue why pedantic ankle-biting does nothing but throw
your integrity into question, eh?
>> >[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.
>
>I know what it is. I also know I am not forced to provide you one.
>As for me being a programmer, I suppose it's debatable, but I have
>the argument of my code.
You aren't forced to post, either. You aren't forced to be an asshole.
Yet you do these two thing, but are apparently incapable of providing a
decent reference. I won't bother with the standard, rhetorical question
"why?" because I already know, and I've already explained it. I'm just
pointing out that it hasn't escaped notice.
[...]
>Well, one of us had to go and do it, I prefer you do it.
>You see, I remember how to get there, I don't remember the URL.
You remembered 'www.kde.org', and you remembered that it was the
'contacts' page, but you didn't remember it was
'www.kde.org/contacts.html'? Why does that seem doubtful?
Those of us who post with honesty and integrity generally find the URL,
and perhaps even check the URL, before suggesting that a particular
reference would be useful to the discussion. You, on the other hand,
are just being an asshole.
[...]
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:31:14 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> >
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>> >> [...]
>> >> >Either you're using static IP's & (obviously) static DNS, or DHCP
>with
>> >> >either static or dynamically allocated DNS. If DNS entries are
>static,
>> >no
>> >> >problem. If they're dynamic, change the DNS setting...
>> >>
>> >> We may be using something else; your attempt to restrict the
>nature of
>> >> the network in order to implement your solution speaks volumes
>> >> concerning your technical capabilities.
>> >>
>> >So what would be the alternative of either a) dynamically assigned
>DNS
>> >settings, or b) fixed DNS settings? For Windows based hosts, that
>is the
>> >entirety of your options for setting DNS. I'm not restricting
>anything
>> >here, this is How It Is.
>>
>> Dynamic of fixed DNS settings using some other mechanism that gets
>> screwed up by Microsoft crapware. There is no "How It Is"; this is
>the
>> real world. Standards are defined by consensus, not monopolization.
>>
>So you admit that you are arguing from a point of absolutely no idea?
Ummmm.... no. Why do you ask? Could it be you're as incapable of
understanding interoperability, and why I say that it is not within
either your or Microsoft's power to declare "this is How It Is?"
>If there's some hidden button that I'm missing in my network
>configuration, that lets me use some other option, I'd be glad if you
>can point it out.
Well, its there in everybody else's network configuration; perhaps
Microsoft left it out, so as not to confuse your tiny little brain.
Here; have a piece of cheese.
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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 12:46:58 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8po9fk$p1t$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > 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?
If it makes full use of standard HTML features, yes. Neither Netscape or IE
fully support all standard features (though IE handles more features than
Netscape does).
------------------------------
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 17:29:15 GMT
On Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:10:21 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Yea, and Microsoft 'sells' millions of copies of Windows. You'll notice
>>> I asked for examples of this technology being used *in practice* _to
>>> achieve any benefit_. I'm frankly not at all interested in a couple
>>> small-time companies trying to *sell* stuff; prove it works in real life
>>> usage, or save your breath.
>>
>>Of course. Nothing I say, no matter if I met your current requirements or
>>not, would be acceptable to you. You'd just change your requirements like
>>you're doing right now.
>
>I might change the way I explain why a hammer falls to the ground when
>dropped, but that won't change the way gravity works, Erik. I'm sorry
>you can't understand why what Microsoft did was illegal. I'd be happy
>to continue trying to explain it, if you showed some inkling of being
He is simply unable or unwilling to see the value in ensuring
that there are multiple viable competitors in any particular
market in a capitalist economy.
[deletia]
--
Finding an alternative should not be like seeking out the holy grail.
That is the whole damn point of capitalism.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: ZDNet reviews W2K server; I think you'll be surprised....
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2000 13:32:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Stuart Fox in alt.destroy.microsoft;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> All this proves, Stuart, is that you haven't figured out where the
>> problems are yet. It is virtually *guaranteed* that *someone* will
>have
>> interoperability problems; that is the whole point. Microsoft isn't
>> designing networking systems; they're locking in market share. If
>there
>> stuff wasn't crap, it would have competition!
>>
>If you're willing to argue from a point of no facts, fine. Just tell
>me before you start making factless statements and I'll ignore them.
It is your argument from ignorance which is 'a point of no facts'. We
didn't need a warning, though; we knew it as soon as you mentioned
Microsoft Windows. Now if only we could ignore them....
--
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
******************************
