Linux-Advocacy Digest #358, Volume #29 Fri, 29 Sep 00 15:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Java (off-topic?) (Was: Re: Because programmers...) (Roberto Selbach Teixeira)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Mike Byrns)
Re: programming languages and design (Roberto Selbach Teixeira)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Mike Byrns)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS (Daniel Berger)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Can Win9x and NT be considered in the same family? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (dc)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? (Pete
Goodwin)
Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Re: How low can they go...? (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Java (off-topic?) (Was: Re: Because programmers...)
Date: 29 Sep 2000 14:15:04 -0300
>>>>> "Karri" == Karri Kalpio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Karri> Actually, nowadays it's not. The new JIT compilers are
Karri> quite decent. We (== R&D staff @ More Magic) have done
Karri> quite a lot performance testing with different JVMs and
Karri> Java 1.1 with a good JIT is only about 10-20% slower in
Karri> number crunching (our test case being mailny encryption
Karri> speed). Granted, using the AWT is slower than Motif...
GUI in Java is as slow as hell...
As for JITs, well, I heard about them and decided to try. I've never
seen a java program which could be even _near_ C++ speed, especially
when you can optimize C++ to use processor specific instructions,
etc... Of course, I have no numbers nor have I ever tried to _really_
benchmark this.
Karri> And Sun's Java 2 JVM (JDK 1.2) is noticeably faster than
Karri> the 1.1.
Oh, yes! Much faster.
Karri> As a side note, already 1 1/2 years ago, Symantec's Java
Karri> native compiler produced code that was about 5% faster than
Karri> the test case written in C and compiled with C++
Karri> Builder. Unfortunately, that's only available on Windows.
I'll take your word on that one. However, we have to consider how good
is C++ Builder's compiler. How well does it optimize code? We have to
take that in effect.
regards,
-- Roberto.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:22:06 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> chrisv wrote:
> >
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck) wrote:
> >
> > >>When they choose not to, I conclude that they too are acting unwisely,
> > >>and to their own detriment, in their use/abuse of debt.
> > >
> > >For one thing, the debt to buy a house is subsidized by the government
> > >through income tax deductions, lowering the effective interest rate by
> > >30% or so. Further, the house and land gains value, usually at a rate
> > >that's comparable to the interest. So a mortage is a decent deal for
> > >most people, compared to renting for the same period of time.
> >
> > Exactly. "Saving up" to pay cash for a house is actually STUPID. You
> > are MUCH better off to borrow the money, live in the house, get the
> > tax breaks, and watch inflation reduce the value of you debt while
> > increasing the value of the house.
>
> Since Greenspan took the helm of the fed, there's been almost zero
> depreciation of the US dollar.
>
> Is there inflation? Yes...but 2% inflation with 2% growth of the
> economy means ZERO loss of purchasing power
>
> (inflation is in reference to the money supply, NOT prices).
For once I agree with you. I still hate your sig though :-)
------------------------------
From: Roberto Selbach Teixeira <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
Date: 29 Sep 2000 14:25:08 -0300
>>>>> "Donal" == Donal K Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Donal> Depends what you mean by "powerful" since C and the other
Donal> languages you contrast it with are all Turing-complete, and
Donal> hence equivalent in terms of computational power. Which
Donal> goes to show that there's more to this business than
Donal> computational power... :^)
Hmm. Very true. That is what comes to my mind when I hear someone
talking about a language not being powerful enough. Most languages
nowadays allow you to do _anything_ you want, provided you have the
necessary knowledge and skills.
Computer languages do vary in easy of use. One can argue that Delphi
(not my favourite language, really) is *far* more suited to creating
an administrative system than C, because of RAD, etc... and I believe
it probably is for most people. A few people prefer the high level of
control they sense in programming in a low level computer language. It
is almost a matter of taste.
regards,
-- Roberto (who actually *hates* Delphi)
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 12:25:10 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> Mike Byrns wrote:
> >
> > "Joseph T. Adams" wrote:
> > >
>
> > > But for most people, loans for cars and computers and TVs and other
> > > depreciating consumer items are just plain stupid. These should be
> > > financed via savings, not debt.
> >
> > While every greasy advertiser uses every trick in the book to separate
> > you from that hard earned cash?
>
> Just say "no"
OK. I forbid advertisers from bothering my with their messages. Hmm.
Didn't work. Do you remember how we tried to wear down Noriega?
Constant sensory attack? The same thing is done to our citizens and
you're right -- we should just say "no". All advertising should be opt
in like good internet advertising.
------------------------------
From: Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 17:30:42 GMT
Following quotes are from two different posters.
>>beos gui ? yeah well... ripped like hell from windows , mac and
>>nextstep
So what?. Were the Linux window managers developed in a vacuum?
Besides, the Be developers flat out admit they took what they thought
were the best elements of other interfaces, including Amiga OS.
>>SMP support? Yup - automatic. No configuration hassles.
I installed Mandrake 7.0 not long ago. During installation it asked if
I wanted SMP support. I selected "yes". Still no SMP. Something to
do with my LILO configuration I'm told. Screw that.
Now, I'm not saying that is likely to happen to you, I'm just saying
that you don't have to deal with it - ever.
>> Can you say 64 bit OS? Ok, so *some* flavors of Unix are there, too.
>> <general statements about how many unix flavors are 64 bit>
IRIX was the only one I had heard of that was 64 bit before Solaris 7.
Of course, I don't know a single person who was running it. Guess
people weren't willing to shell out five grand for an O3 box.
>> OpenGL - vaporware
Guess again. It's already in beta and tested. Slashdot even ran the
article about the tests done vs. Linux and Windows.
>>Beos crashes PRETTY frequently as anyone knows that tested it for a
>>sustained amount of time.
Now you're just making crap up. I have seen it go into the kernel
debugger during installation, but then I've seen just about every other
OS fail at some point during installation as well. Never have I seen
it crash *after* successful installation.
All bets are off when booting into Personal Edition from Windows,
however. Stick to Pro, and don't use the Windows boot option.
>Among other things, he's talking out his ass.
>
>Most operating systems have little problem being incorrectly
>shut down. Even on non-journaled file systems most OSes don't
>make it a habit to be writing to critical parts of the disk
>all the time.
>
>You can shutdown Redhat 4.x via the powerswitch on a regular
>basis to no ill effect (except really long reboots). When my
>machine was still shared with a WinDOS user, I did just this
>actually.
I'd love to see this put to the test. I've crashed a Solaris box after
3 incorrect shutdowns. No long reboots with BeOS, either.
>>Nevermind the fact that Linuxen are now shipping with journaled
>>file systems as well as 64bit (on IA32) ones.
Since when? Which one? I'm genuinely curious. Well, if they are then
you're right. It shouldn't be a problem any more.
In any case, I wasn't suggesting that Linux was unstable or that this
was a big selling point vs Linux. Shutting down your computer
incorrectly the number of times required to crash a Linux box likely
means you deserve what you got.
>>beos has'nt any apps beside those following base install and you
>>know that!
There are over 2000 apps available on bebits alone. Where do you get
this crap?
--
In the immortal words of Socrates, "I drank what?"
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 13:14:52 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >As if the profit on Microsoft Windows is any of your business whatsoever
> >Max.
>
> Of course it is. The legal conduct of every company in the country is
> everyone's business.
What does that have to do with how much profit they make? There is no law
which puts a cap on how much profit a company makes. A client I once worked
for had something like 10,000% profit on most of the items it sold and this
was perfectly legal.
> >Your lucky that they are even public, otherwise you wouldn't even have
> >the right to know their profits.
>
> Yet they'd still have to act lawfully.
Irrelevant to what their profits are.
> >And what's the profit (above break even)
> >have to do the price the market will bear?
>
> What the heck do you mean 'about break even'? Have you got brain
> damage?
I notice you didn't answer the question.
> >For instance - they are well
> >within their rights to invest 500+ million developing Windows 2000 and
earn
> >5 billion on the investment over the next few years. It's business 101.
Deal
> >with it.
>
> They can do anything they want, so long as it does not fall into that
> class of activity known as 'anti-competitive', as all such strategies
> and actions are criminal offenses. Deal with it.
No, they're not. Anti-trust law is civil law. Criminal offenses are
criminal law. If you said civil law was suddenly criminal, then people
could be put in jail for breaking a verbal agreement.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 13:17:18 -0500
"chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> How anyone can be so stupid as to "root" for Microsoft, is waayyy...
> beyond me. These people are evil. Don't you know that? They didn't
> get to where they are by playing fair. Do you really think that
> playing fair gets you to where they are in that amount of time? Do
> you really think that Microsoft's products are that much better than
> anyone else's?
In the Windows arena, yes, they often are better than other Windows
programs.
Office got to be king because it's competitors sat on their laurels and
didn't improve their products, or didn't do so in a timely manner.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Can Win9x and NT be considered in the same family?
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:02:50 GMT
Can we really consider 9x and NT part of the same OS family? I say no!
9x is 32/16bit hybrid hack for DOS. It has no filesystem protection,
no journaling, and no real multi-user capabilities. NT actually has
these. The only thing have in common with each other is binary type and
UI and even then they aren't 100% the same. The API's are somewhat
similar however they have several large differences and some functions
do not do the same things.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 13:15:05 -0500
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 10:00:57 -0500, Mike Byrns
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> But for most people, loans for cars and computers and TVs and other
>> depreciating consumer items are just plain stupid. These should be
>> financed via savings, not debt.
>
>While every greasy advertiser uses every trick in the book to separate
>you from that hard earned cash? That might work for folks socking
>greenbacks in their mattress in Montana but the media pressures on the
>coasts are a full time job to combat.
Only if you are so weak that you allow it. If the television costs
you money or causes you to go into debt, get rid of it.
I agree with much of what the original poster said - America has lived
beyond its' means for a long, long time. Individuals routinely
finance *consumer* goods with *debt*. It's stunning that anyone would
do this - I believe the only things financed should be a house, a car,
and hospital bills - but people routinely do those and much, much
more.
I'm all for financing in some other circumstances. For example, if I
actually and really _do_ want a new TV, and a store says "no payment
until July 2002", then I can make 10-15% on my money for 1.5 years
(investing) and then pay for the TV, which might substantially reduce
the cost of the TV. But I'd be sure to pay for the TV the instant the
grace period ended. So many people don't do that. Sigh...so much
money wasted...
------------------------------
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: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:29:34 -0000
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 13:17:18 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> How anyone can be so stupid as to "root" for Microsoft, is waayyy...
>> beyond me. These people are evil. Don't you know that? They didn't
>> get to where they are by playing fair. Do you really think that
>> playing fair gets you to where they are in that amount of time? Do
>> you really think that Microsoft's products are that much better than
>> anyone else's?
>
>In the Windows arena, yes, they often are better than other Windows
>programs.
>
>Office got to be king because it's competitors sat on their laurels and
>didn't improve their products, or didn't do so in a timely manner.
Some of those products really didn't need any improving. Furthermore,
when pressed for any actual detailed reasons why office might be
"better" than any arbitrary competitor, Lemmings tend to fall silent.
[deletia]
--
There is always something new out of Africa.
-- Gaius Plinius Secundus
prairies, n.:
Vast plains covered by treeless forests.
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:37:10 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 13:17:18 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> How anyone can be so stupid as to "root" for Microsoft, is waayyy...
> >> beyond me. These people are evil. Don't you know that? They didn't
> >> get to where they are by playing fair. Do you really think that
> >> playing fair gets you to where they are in that amount of time? Do
> >> you really think that Microsoft's products are that much better than
> >> anyone else's?
> >
> >In the Windows arena, yes, they often are better than other Windows
> >programs.
> >
> >Office got to be king because it's competitors sat on their laurels and
> >didn't improve their products, or didn't do so in a timely manner.
>
> Some of those products really didn't need any improving. Furthermore,
> when pressed for any actual detailed reasons why office might be
> "better" than any arbitrary competitor, Lemmings tend to fall silent.
>
The 'improvement' that mattered was Windows 3.0 support. neither Lotus
nor WordPerfect figured out fast enough that Windows was going to be
used widely; they kept releasing DOS specific versions well after MS had
Word and Excel out under Windows. That gave MS room to sell Windows
integrated products that had no effective competition; it turned out
that people didn't want to quit Windows in order to run other apps.
basically, MS changed the playing field on the competition, and they
were slow to respond.
> [deletia]
>
> --
>
> There is always something new out of Africa.
> -- Gaius Plinius Secundus
>
> prairies, n.:
> Vast plains covered by treeless forests.
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
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: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:47:43 -0000
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:37:10 GMT, James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 13:17:18 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >"chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> How anyone can be so stupid as to "root" for Microsoft, is waayyy...
>> >> beyond me. These people are evil. Don't you know that? They didn't
>> >> get to where they are by playing fair. Do you really think that
>> >> playing fair gets you to where they are in that amount of time? Do
>> >> you really think that Microsoft's products are that much better than
>> >> anyone else's?
>> >
>> >In the Windows arena, yes, they often are better than other Windows
>> >programs.
>> >
>> >Office got to be king because it's competitors sat on their laurels and
>> >didn't improve their products, or didn't do so in a timely manner.
>>
>> Some of those products really didn't need any improving. Furthermore,
>> when pressed for any actual detailed reasons why office might be
>> "better" than any arbitrary competitor, Lemmings tend to fall silent.
>>
>
>The 'improvement' that mattered was Windows 3.0 support. neither Lotus
>nor WordPerfect figured out fast enough that Windows was going to be
Bullshit. You're talking about Monopolysoft taking a slight
early lead and no one being able to catch up. Lotus most
definitely supported Windows 3.0 early on. Anything else is
self serving historical revisionism.
Borland was also rather on the ball too.
>used widely; they kept releasing DOS specific versions well after MS had
>Word and Excel out under Windows. That gave MS room to sell Windows
>integrated products that had no effective competition; it turned out
>that people didn't want to quit Windows in order to run other apps.
The mere fact that Microsoft could take a short early lead
and turn it into an effective monopoly demonstrates that
something was/is quite horribly wrong.
>
>basically, MS changed the playing field on the competition, and they
>were slow to respond.
Bullshit.
Some of us were actually using those products that you claim
were non-existent in what you would likely regard as ancient
history.
[deletia]
By the time WinDOS was something worth bothering with, Microsoft's
desktop competitors were there in full force with equivalent or
better products.
--
I never did it that way before.
Fortune finishes the great quotations, #2
If at first you don't succeed, think how many people
you've made happy.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 18:59:46 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Blacknight) wrote in
<lq1B5.3924$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Yes you are correct. Windows 98 doesn't NEED TSR's any more but alot of
>computers have then loaded regardless.b Maybe the term I was looking for
>was backgroup applications. Anyway the more programs you have running on
>start up increases the probably of a crash. Anyway what I was getting at
>is that people need to realize that the majority of time there is a
>crash it doesn't have anything to do with the OS.
What you're saying then is that you shouldn't run too many applications on
Windows 98 SE in case they crash it? Isn't that the whole point of using a
computer?!?
Our Linux Advocate friends here would say that Windows 98 SE can't be a
very good operating system if it can't hack it running a few applications
in the background (something Linux does very well).
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windows+Linux+MacOS = BeOS
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2000 19:01:02 -0000
On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 17:30:42 GMT, Daniel Berger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Following quotes are from two different posters.
>
>>>beos gui ? yeah well... ripped like hell from windows , mac and
>>>nextstep
>
>So what?. Were the Linux window managers developed in a vacuum?
Compared to BeOS, pretty much. The development of X interfaces
goes back long before BeOS. Infact, many of the aspects of X
that are cited as Windows-isms are infact ideas that Microsoft
originally stole from X interfaces.
[deletia]
>>>SMP support? Yup - automatic. No configuration hassles.
>
>I installed Mandrake 7.0 not long ago. During installation it asked if
>I wanted SMP support. I selected "yes". Still no SMP. Something to
>do with my LILO configuration I'm told. Screw that.
Mandrake 7.x doesn't use LILO.
>
>Now, I'm not saying that is likely to happen to you, I'm just saying
>that you don't have to deal with it - ever.
>
So? You may very well have to deal with something else. I
and my colleagues certainly haven't had a simple time of it.
Between post install configuration issues or lack of device
support, one can be plenty inconvenienced by Be.
[deletia]
>>> OpenGL - vaporware
>
>Guess again. It's already in beta and tested. Slashdot even ran the
>article about the tests done vs. Linux and Windows.
It was the original Be Troll that stated this to be the case.
>
>>>Beos crashes PRETTY frequently as anyone knows that tested it for a
>>>sustained amount of time.
>
>Now you're just making crap up. I have seen it go into the kernel
>debugger during installation, but then I've seen just about every other
>OS fail at some point during installation as well. Never have I seen
>it crash *after* successful installation.
>
>All bets are off when booting into Personal Edition from Windows,
>however. Stick to Pro, and don't use the Windows boot option.
Why should where you boot it from matter? Why should a weak
filesystem make an OS more unstable? It is after all an official
version from Be rather than something cobbled together by two
junior high students.
>
>>Among other things, he's talking out his ass.
>>
>>Most operating systems have little problem being incorrectly
>>shut down. Even on non-journaled file systems most OSes don't
>>make it a habit to be writing to critical parts of the disk
>>all the time.
>>
>>You can shutdown Redhat 4.x via the powerswitch on a regular
>>basis to no ill effect (except really long reboots). When my
>>machine was still shared with a WinDOS user, I did just this
>>actually.
>
>I'd love to see this put to the test. I've crashed a Solaris box after
>3 incorrect shutdowns. No long reboots with BeOS, either.
I've done so, as I stated.
>
>>>Nevermind the fact that Linuxen are now shipping with journaled
>>>file systems as well as 64bit (on IA32) ones.
>
>Since when? Which one? I'm genuinely curious. Well, if they are then
The next minor version of Mandrake after the one you claimed
to have installed for one. Suse was doing it awhile before
Mandrake and even Redhat had a version of 6.x with those sorts
of tweaks in place.
>you're right. It shouldn't be a problem any more.
It never was.
The notion that it should be is just a DOS-ism.
>
>In any case, I wasn't suggesting that Linux was unstable or that this
>was a big selling point vs Linux. Shutting down your computer
>incorrectly the number of times required to crash a Linux box likely
>means you deserve what you got.
>
>>>beos has'nt any apps beside those following base install and you
>>>know that!
>
>There are over 2000 apps available on bebits alone. Where do you get
>this crap?
That's not a figure to brag about.
--
"Beauty is transitory."
"Beauty survives."
-- Spock and Kirk, "That Which Survives", stardate unknown
Don't hit me!! I'm in the Twilight Zone!!!
------------------------------
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: 29 Sep 2000 19:07:47 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> How anyone can be so stupid as to "root" for Microsoft, is waayyy...
>> beyond me. These people are evil. Don't you know that? They didn't
>> get to where they are by playing fair. Do you really think that
>> playing fair gets you to where they are in that amount of time? Do
>> you really think that Microsoft's products are that much better than
>> anyone else's?
> In the Windows arena, yes, they often are better than other Windows
> programs.
> Office got to be king because it's competitors sat on their laurels and
> didn't improve their products, or didn't do so in a timely manner.
What you meant to say, im quite certian, was this:
"it's competitors sat on their laurels and didnt release a new version
every 3 months whether there were improvements or not, and create a
little clickety button for *everything* and instead kept things in
menus where windows users (but not mac or unix) couldnt find
them".
=====.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
