Linux-Advocacy Digest #275, Volume #29 Sat, 23 Sep 00 14:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (lyttlec)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (lyttlec)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Bob Hauck)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows (lyttlec)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: hypocritical Unix apologists (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: GPL & freedom (Tim Tyler)
Re: GPL & freedom (Tim Tyler)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Timberwoof)
Re: How low can they go...? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Timberwoof)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT ("Chad Myers")
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (dc)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:24:05 GMT
chrisv wrote:
>
> On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 00:44:05 +0100, Garry Knight
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >I remember sitting in my local launderette building a Forth-based OS for the
> >Spectrum by writing opcodes into a pocket notebook (which, of course, in those
> >days was made of paper). Ah, the good ol' days... :o)
>
> You think that's bad, in tech school (early 80's) we each had to build
> a simple Z80 computer. Programming this computer was done via direct
> machine-code (of course). The really bad part was that loading the
> program into memory consisted of flipping switches on a 8-position DIP
> switch for each byte, followed by a press of a button to load that
> byte in. Talk about stupid!
You think that's bad, in my tech school days we programmed the computer
with "plug boards". Put one end of the blue wire into the green hole and
the other into the red hole type of thing. We thought it was great when
we got a computer with tubes instead of relays.
We also walked two miles to school every day bare foot in the snow.
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:40:55 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> =
> El vie, 22 sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi=F3:
> >Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:00092210093302.27004@pc03...
> >> El vie, 22 sep 2000, D. Spider escribi=F3:
> >> >It appears that on Thu, 21 Sep 2000 18:19:51 -0300, in
> >> >comp.os.linux.advocacy Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>El jue, 21 sep 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribi=F3:
> >> >>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>>> For most early-era operating systems, there was not much of a
> >> >>>> difference between binary and source code.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Have you ever written anything in machine language. The differenc=
e
> >> >>>between machine language and even a primitive assembler is HUGE.
> >> >>
> >> >>Z80 machine language inserted in a REM statement in a Sinclair 100=
0
> >> >>(ZX81 clone) counts?
> >> >
> >> >Hahah you too? I did the same thing, well, not on the 1000, but on =
the
> >> >related Timex/Sinclairs, the 2068 in particular.
> >>
> >> You rich guys with 16 colors and over 16KB of RAM ;-)
> >
> >We used to do the same thing with the TRS-80 Model I, only rather than=
REM's
> >we would load the machine code into string variables.
> =
> The funny thing about those REMs in a sinclair was that that thing used=
a sort
> of insane ASCII where the higher chars contained lots of things, from
> semi-graphic characters to actual basic keywords!
> =
> So, for example, if you had a 0xF0, it could display as a "THEN", which=
was, of
> course, something entirely different from the 4 chars THEN :-). In fact=
, it
> *was* possible to enter any opcode by hand directly, only that it would=
have
> been even MORE insane ;-)
> =
> --
> Roberto Alsina
An interesting point is that those techniques still work today. You can
do some very fun stuff by loading a program into memory and having it
modify itself on the fly. Most compilers won't let you generate such
code, so you have to do it by hand.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 14:04:49 GMT
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 04:45:36 GMT, Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>To do good design, you have to abstact over /all possible/
>implementations of your design.
People who say things like that tend to not have ever had to implement
their designs.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 16:48:14 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> In article <HTOx5.1724$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Yannick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Now consider someone working with his computer for interactive tasks
> > (wordprocessing, drawing, multimedia, etc...). What the job is about
> is
> > communicating with the machine, so one of the major quality
> requirements
> > will be a rich user interface. I personnally prefer (for interactive
> tasks)
> > software that has a rich interface (for instance Windows apps using
> the GUI
> > intensively) to software that I can run for three days without a
> crash,
>
> There are several problems with that. First, for an end user, a major
> part of quality is being able to figure out how to do his job. If the
> help data are useless nad the hardcopy manuals are a joke, then it
> doesn't matter how pretty or rich the interface is. Not that I agree
> that the m$ interface is either; it isn't.
>
> Another problem is that a crash often loses the user's data, and even
> when it doesn't it disrupts his train of thought. I doubt that you would
> get a user looking at the BSOD to agree that it is quality.
>
> --
> --
> Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
>
> "A BIND is a terrible thing to waste"
>
> Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
> Before you buy.
But, from MS standpoint, NT/95/98/2k/Me is quality. It meets the
requirements of MS marketing, it got to market, and they have something
they can force OEMs to use without getting too many end users upset.
There is no Quality requirement at MS for the product to actually work.
Your definition of Quality and my definition of Quality differ, but they
don't count.
------------------------------
From: Bryant Brandon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 11:52:21 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 12:43:19 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
@(C Lund) wrote:
@
@>In article
@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
@><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@>
@>> LOL. It isn't for me to prove my knowledge whenever you ask, CLund.
@>
@>Then don't expect anybody to think you have any knowledge.
@
@Sorry, CLund, but whenever you have a question on basic, basic
@principles, you need to head on over to www.microsoft.com to educate
@yourself.
He's not asking you to educate hime--he's asking you to back up your
claims. Take a look back at
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
said, "Your lack of knowledge is apalling." You seem to be implying
that he didn't know something. In that case, it is your responsibility
at the very least to narrow down the search criteria. Telling him to go
to www.miscosoft.com doesn't do it, since that encompases much more than
he asked for.
On the other hand, it is very interesting that you continue to refuse
to provide proof that you know the difference. You've probably written
more, and spent more time, refusing to provide proof, than you would
have providing the proof. I find it somewhat humorous. Also a pretty
good indication that either you don't know, or are afraid that the
differences aren't good enough.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://web2.airmail.net/dbrandon
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:27:22 GMT
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> This is so absurd that I'm not even going to respond to it.
Do you know *anything* about sociology or psychology???
> Every so often, some usenet kook comes along and talks about this idea
> for a radical new project that will "be better than everything else",
> and the project never even gets off the ground for a few reasons:
I was doing perfectly fine just bashing Unix. And this is something I've
said repeatedly but you seem to conveniently forget every time: I do NOT
need to promote my own OS project! Just what the fuck is wrong with
promoting EROS, Grasshopper, VSTa or Plan 9???
If you're looking for a way to end this discussion then that's fine, I have
better things to do. But *don't* twist the facts because that just pisses
me off! I've been working on my project for years now, do you seriously
think I give a shit about anyone's approval?? Then do you seem to
think my bashing Unix has anything to do with getting any approwal??
>(*) It's impractical.
> (*) Typically, those who cannot come up with practicle, implemenetable
> solutions are also not capable of implementing anything.
>
> I don;'t see how you're helping users by hyping some grand and pretentious
> idea that's unlikely to even result in an OS that can so much as boot
> ( let alone do anything useful )
And you are of course including EROS, Grasshopper, VSTa and Plan 9 in
that description, right?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: hypocritical Unix apologists
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:28:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Donovan Rebbechi
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on 22 Sep 2000 21:15:05 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:02:18 GMT, Richard wrote:
>>FM wrote:
>>> required in programming is minimal, but when a guy
>>> is showing complete inability to understand
>>> abstract concepts, you can often attribute that to
>>> the lack of basic mathematical skills.
>>
>>ROTFLMAO. You have no idea how wide your shot went.
>>I was weaned on mathematics, I grew up on it and
>
>You're not the only one in the discussion who knows math
>( Roberto studied some, I'm finishing a PhD ... )
>
>I don't think a "lack of mathematical ability" is the problem. I
>think you've got a lot of big ideas, and big talk, but I don't think
>you're capable of implementing anything.
>
>Much like the mathematician who can derive a solution to a problem,
>though the solution is so complex as to be unusable.
It gets worse.
I am a mathematician, at least by degree (BS in Math from UCSB).
Have I really had to use any of this hard-won mathematical knowledge,
specifically Galois theory, Lebesgue measurement theory, and
even for that matter, calculus?
Not even. The finite automata I've used, somewhat, but even that
isn't much of an issue with tools such as (f)lex and (b)yacc.
(Although understanding how they work might be of some assistance,
not unlike understanding the basics of a car, perhaps.) And I
have yet to use them, anyway, on a project I'm working on;
either someone else has already done the work, or the project doesn't
involve parsing to that extent. Calculus isn't much of an issue
where I work (Internet and 2-D CAD don't really need it).
And OO is quite different from math, anyway, IMO; Unix was OO before
the concept existed; one merely open()s a file, not caring whether
it's a disk file, a remotely mounted NFS file, an AFS file (if that's
still around), a Samba-mounted file, a device driver such as /dev/tty1,
or even an image of memory (/dev/kmem)! Ditto for read()ing,
write()ing, close()ing, lseek()ing, etc. ioctl() might care, but
that's used less often.
And it's worked well for decades. Linus did the right thing in
borrowing the gross structure of Unix (parts of the fine structure -- the
particulars of the coding environment -- may have been borrowed
too. I don't know; I have a book on writing Unix device drivers that's
almost useless for working with Linux; the environment is different).
But math is useful, if only to tell people that x is a variable, not
a railroad crossing; that y is a variable, not a question, and that
z is a variable, not something people sleep with. :-) It comes
in handy when looking at snippets of code to know what the variables
are holding, or supposed to hold.
>
>--
>Donovan
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:31:33 GMT
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> > Sure I can. It's a well-known fact in OS circles that a
> > single uniform interface is a fundamental principle of
> > good design.
>
> Cite, please.
Denis Ritchie on the design of Plan 9. But it's such a well-
established and *OBVIOUS* fact that /I/ wouldn't expect
knowledgeable people to be discussing it much. It would
be like doctors discussing the importance of breathing
oxygen.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:32:05 GMT
In lots of advocacy groups, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:1SDx5.2386
:> " "Free software" refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute,
:> study, change and improve the software."
:>
:> Given that goal the GPL is more "free" than other licenses.
: Except that it doesn't even meet that goal. Sure, it gives you the freedom
: to run the software, copy it, distribute it. You cannot study it, change
: it, or improve it for any reason other than personal use without having your
: actions dictated to you by the GPL.
I loathe the GPL for this reason.
Whenever *I* release free software, the licence conditions allow anyone to
do whatever they like with it, without imposing any restrictions on them
whatsoever. I *want* companies to build commercial systems on my code.
As far as I'm concerned, the more users the merrier.
--
__________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/ VIPAR GAMMA GUPPY.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: GPL & freedom
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:35:34 GMT
In several advocacy groups James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: It's a license; get over it. All licenses restrict your rights and/or
: access to code in some fashion.
Surely not. What about a license that says:
``This program - and its source code - are hereby placed in the public
domain.
This means you can do whatever you like with them.
Modification, redistribution, commercial use, passing the code off as
your own - it's all fine by me.''
?
--
__________ Lotus Artificial Life http://alife.co.uk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
|im |yler The Mandala Centre http://mandala.co.uk/ Namaste.
------------------------------
From: Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:47:11 GMT
In article <39cc887f$5$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> No, my intellectual argument against using Macs is that they are largely
> unsupported, proprietary oddities far from the mainstream of the real
> computer world. Apple product users are the hermits of the 21st Century.
On the other hand, the Macintosh platform is well supported with
software by such industry leaders as Adobe, Macromedia, and Microsoft
itself. Far from being so "proprietary," they adhere to all sorts of
hardware and software standards. Apple is a leading force in creating
some of these standards. And because of the Macintosh's excellent
support for networking, Apple product users are well-connected.
You are obviously using the word "intellectual" in some new and novel
way with which I am not familiar.
--
Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com> Chief Perpetrator
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
"The opposite of hardware is not easyware."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:48:15 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 22 Sep 2000 23:17:30 -0000
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 22:43:54 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>>on Fri, 22 Sep 2000 20:34:48 -0000
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>On Fri, 22 Sep 2000 18:50:51 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> wrote
>>>>on Sun, 17 Sep 2000 01:52:44 -0400
>>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>>>Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[deletia]
>>>>
>>>>And now we're more or less stuck with it. :-/
>>>
>>> This is more a side effect of bad MS engineering than
>>> anything else. Nearly every other commonly known OS
>>> has not suffered this problem (VMS, Unix, NextStep, MacOS).
>>
>>There's two other issues, unfortunately. Not only did MS engineer
>>it badly, but MS tried to (and, for the most part, succeeded to)
>>leverage its dominance in one operating system -- MS-DOS -- to
>>give us all an even worse-engineered graphical subproduct, namely,
>>Windows 3.1, and later on Windows 95, Windows NT, and you know
>>the rest. :-)
>>
>>But the big problem? We bought it hook, line and sinker. (We may
>>have felt that there was little other choice, but we did buy it.
>>Or perhaps middle management in key corporate accounts bought it.
>>I don't know.)
>
> What's this "we" stuff? ppppffffttt!
Well, if you've never bought a computer with preinstalled MS software ever
in your lifetime, then I suppose it would be just "we minus jedi". :-)
(It's possible!)
I'll admit, though, that I'm part of the "we", if only because I have
bought computers that had Microsoft Windows licenses. (I have 3
licenses, actually, only 1 of which I actually even use, and that one
rarely, now; this computer, which is a dualboot, has been up
10:37am up 38 days, 20:18, 9 users, load average: 1.00, 1.02, 1.00
which indicates the last time I rebooted the sucker. (I don't know
if that was the last time I had Win95 running.) The other one
is my firewall, and that was running for over 100 days before it
crapped out (there's something slightly suspect in there, but I
haven't had time to root it out (pun not intended)).
Were this a slightly different universe, I might now be running a version
of Linux on an Amiga 68060 or something. (I did think about buying
their A3000UX product at one point, but it was too pricey.)
As it is, my PP200 runs Linux reasonably well, although I could wish
for a faster SMP machine -- and I do have an A3000 which is Linux-capable,
but its Bogomips is all of 6. something (as opposed to this one's 199).
Speedy it's not.
>
>>
>>If that is indeed the case, that speaks ill for the American
>>business consumer, and the home user as well; do we really prefeer
>>surface shiny glitz to substance? I'm not sure I like the answer.
>
> I'm not sure I would characterize it quite like this. It would
> be more accurate to call it a herd mentality. Up until recently,
> it was all the other potential Microsoft rivals that had all
> of the glitz and shininess.
Hm...good point, actually. But that might make it even more difficult
to change to a non-Microsoft system. Ugh.
"Yeah, let's buck the herd -- and get trampled."
>
>[deletia]
>
> Also while the herd mentality is certainly there, I think the
> nature of software interfaces and how they tend to interfere
> with free choice is far more critical. It's not enough to merely
> have the "biggest fraternity", you also need a way to trap people
> in once they've made a bad initial decision.
Well, Microsoft's good at that, admittedly.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
------------------------------
From: Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:48:51 GMT
In article <39cc8787$4$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 09/22/2000 at 10:12 AM,
> "Matt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>
> > > Isn't Apple tied in with Speilberg and Gates in some graphics
> > > company?
> > > Gates wouldn't care because he supplies 90% of the software run on
> > > Apples.
> > > Dreamworks SKG is it? The S is Speilberg, the G is Gates. Isn't the K
> > > someone tied in with Apple?
> > >
>
> > Nope Dreamworks SKG is Spielberg, Katzenberg, and Geffen. My proof is
> > at
> > http://www.spielberg-dreamworks.com/DreamWorks_SKG.htm
>
> > There is a tie-in with M$, it is paul allen.
> > Check the facts before you post!
>
> I stand corrected. Note, however, that my post was in the form of a
> question, not a statement of facts.
Are you an idiot? Are you a silly troll who can do nothing but start
flamewars? Do you have to hide your stupid drivel by asking questions?
When it turns out you're flat wrong, do you have to cover your butt my
pointing out that you were only asking questions? Are your posts even
worth reading?
--
Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com> Chief Perpetrator
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
"The opposite of hardware is not easyware."
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:53:18 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, C Lund
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:59:55 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> >You're saying there's nothing new? Then I guess I'm as fluent with W2K as
>> >I am with Win98.
>> <boggle> Well, at least you admit you know nothing about W2k.
>> Anyway, there have been enough posts here that, by now, you should be
>> reasonably educated about it. But I suggest you not knock something
>> you know nothing about.
>
>Since there evidently is nothing new worth mentioning in W2K there is no
>reason for me not to "knock it" the same way I "knock" Win98.
>
>I mean - you guys haven't managed to tell me about *one* single new thing
>in W2K.
Well, it's got nice moving menus which obligingly
vanish semitransparently! :-) Isn't that what the market wants? :-) :-)
(Not to mention a slightly oddball Kerberos implementation. Or was
that an NT4 addon as well?)
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Disclaimer: I haven't used Win2k. I *do* use
NT4 on a regular basis, though.
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:54:30 GMT
"Bryant Brandon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> He's not asking you to educate hime--he's asking you to back up your
> claims. Take a look back at
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you
> said, "Your lack of knowledge is apalling." You seem to be implying
> that he didn't know something. In that case, it is your responsibility
> at the very least to narrow down the search criteria. Telling him to go
> to www.miscosoft.com doesn't do it, since that encompases much more than
> he asked for.
> On the other hand, it is very interesting that you continue to refuse
> to provide proof that you know the difference. You've probably written
> more, and spent more time, refusing to provide proof, than you would
> have providing the proof. I find it somewhat humorous. Also a pretty
> good indication that either you don't know, or are afraid that the
> differences aren't good enough.
He made a statement that Win98 and Windows 2000 are essentially the
same product and then, when we told him he was nuts, he wanted us to
prove to him that, essentially, water was wet.
We're not about to spend our time proving him the world is round or
water is wet, likewise we're not going to waste our time proving
to him that Win2K is completely different than Win98 in almost
every respect.
If he wishes to continue to live in ignorance, so let him (after all,
he is a Mac advocacte, isn't he? If not, he's a Linux advocate, even
worse) that's his problem. If he thinks it's the same product and
wants to be convinced otherwise, he can look up the information himself,
this isn't "comp.os.get.a.clue.for.free"
-Chad
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2000 12:58:05 -0500
On Sat, 23 Sep 2000 17:47:11 GMT, Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>some of these standards. And because of the Macintosh's excellent
>support for networking, Apple product users are well-connected.
This I don't quite understand. Not from a 1990's AppleTalk
perspective, but from a September 2000 perspective, how are Apple
product users "well-connected" compared to the rest of computerdom
(meaning, NT and ME)?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
