Linux-Advocacy Digest #367, Volume #29 Sat, 30 Sep 00 14:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: Id Software developer prefers OS X to Linux, NT (Bryant Brandon)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Christopher Smith")
Re: How low can they go...? ("JS/PL")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes ("JS/PL")
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? (Pete
Goodwin)
Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time? (Pete
Goodwin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
SE is simply unstable!!! ("George")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 10:13:52 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Jonathan Revusky in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> [...]
> >Peter Thorsteinson made this argument earlier and I pointed out to him
> >that if I feel wronged by someone's actions, I can respond in any way I
> >see fit, as long as it is lawful. To lodge a complaint with the ISP or
> >company from which the abusive material emanates is certainly lawful
> >and, as far as I can see, quite appropriate.
>
> I realize I'm butting in to a flame-war which I have no knowledge of,
> but I think it is worth pointing out that, if you feel wronged by
> someone's actions, you only have the right to respond in a way that a
> *reasonable person* would see fit, as it alone would be lawful.
Timothy Devlin might know what he's talking about here since the same
situation almost sent him packing to a new ISP last month.
------------------------------
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, 30 Sep 2000 09:53:44 -0500
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, dc
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@On Thu, 28 Sep 2000 00:12:13 -0500, Bryant Brandon
@<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
@
@>@>machine available, (note: my wschool is an exception) so cahcing is
@>@>even
@>@>more pointless. Further, keeping a different version of a profile for
@>@>every single login from the beginning of time makes even less sense,
@>@>since all these versions can get completely out of synch in a worse
@>@>case
@>@>scenario. In that case, finding out what version of your profile
@>@>you're
@>@>going to be using is nearly impossible.
@>@
@>@So get management software that can automatically clean out profiles
@>@every six weeks, if it's THAT much of an issue for you. Frankly, I
@>@really doubt it is, but hey - the choice is yours.
@>
@> The choice is not mine--I don't own/run the machines. Why does
@>Windows need a third party utility to do something that makes perfect
@>sense?
@
@You don't. In a real enterprise system (like I've seen, but you
@haven't) typically software to do that is at the very bottom of the
@food chain - ie unimportant.
Seems to be rather important if it can render the machine unusable.
@>@>I'm trying to find out what you
@>@>really meant to say.
@>@
@>@I think it's been very obvious to anyone with even passing knowledge
@>@of 9x/NT.
@>
@> Well, it's not.
@
@It is. It's merely that you don't have that passing knowledge that
@you find it difficult.
That's unprovable. Also, you are not a very good writer. It isn't
my fault I can't understand what you're trying to say. Unloading the
blame on me, and accusing me of just being ignorant doesn't change the
fact that your articles are sometimes poorly written and very confusing.
@> I'll look into it. I'l bet there's a copy or two floating around the
@>library here.
@
@They're a great read. I strongly suggest them.
I'll go this evening, I have nothing else to od.
@> It seems to have happened. Yes, I understand quotas, but you implied
@>that they can solve this problem. They cannot.
@
@Of thousands of people logging into a single machine? No. Of a
@typical scenario of one user clogging up his profile with a 50MB .MOV
@file? Yes, it can solve that.
30 users on a machine with a little harddrive? Each user with many
fairly long word documents with lots of graphics.
@>@Call your desktop support staff.
@>
@> ...a bunch of monkies.
@
@:)
The shoe fits. (:
@>@>@>@Do you have any administrative experience at all?
@>@>@>
@>@>@> Yes.
@>@>@
@>@>@At what, exactly?
@>@>
@>@> My stuff. Net BSD on my IIci talking to my Quadra. Two machines.
@>@>Two users: root, and me.
@>@> Therefore, I have administrative experience.
@>@
@>@Not even close. You've set up a single BSD machine, something that
@>@typically takes about 30 minutes to a few hours and requires no or a
@>@very light technical skillset; administrative experience would be
@>@doing that for a job (say, during summertime) 40 hours a week, setting
@>@up 20 or 30 users a day and doing permissions, NFS, CIFS, YP, and
@>@other 'stuff' day in and day out.
@>@
@>@By that logic, one can be an administrator because he's set up OS X
@>@beta. That's silly.
@>
@> You asked: "Do you have any administrative experience at all?" I
@>said, "Yes." Did I lie? Nope, you just asked a bad question. How am I
@>supposed to know you meant, "Do you have any administrative experience
@>that I would consider impressive?"
@
@Don't be silly. By that logic anyone running Windows 95 is an account
@operator / administrator (because hey, you can have a "multi-user"
@(heh) Win95, too!)
Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer....
@>@>@4. Slower? Sure, on machines without enough RAM. Otherwise, it's
@>@>@fine.
@>@>
@>@> WTF? It's logging into a server, showing a GUI, and running Word.
@>@>Just how much more memory would be reasonable?
@>@
@>@NT needs RAM. Boy...take a hint, and don't look at OS X anytime soon;
@>@you'll have a heart attack; it makes NT svelte in comparison.
@>
@> Further, it's beside the point.
@
@Still, NT is hardly a RAM-heavy monster compared to today's OSs....
So the RAM thing is probably a red-herring.
@>@>@No, you're more than qualified to call your desktop support staff
@>@>@'shit'. Since you have no idea what's wrong with the machine, any
@>@>@other analysis you could make would be silly.
@>@>
@>@> 1. My support staff IS shit.
@>@
@>@That, folks, is the root of the problem.
@>@
@>@> 2. They did just fine with 95/98.
@>@
@>@Immaterial. See #1.
@>
@> Very material. 95/98--OK, w2k--failure. Staff hasn't changed,
@>hardware hasn't changed, usage hasn't changed, even the damn weather
@>hasn't changed. All that's changed is the OS.
@
@...according to you, who isn't an administrator, can't look at the
@machine in question, and generally is clueless about NT / Microsoft
@OSs. Sorry, but that's not an authoritative answer.
Umm, nope. That has nothing to do with it.
DC, is it just me, or has out conversation slipped away from
hollering at eachother? It's a nice change, don't get me wrong, but
it's still a little odd.
--
B.B. --I am not a goat! http://people.unt.edu/~bdb0015
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
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: 30 Sep 2000 15:04:16 GMT
On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:04:42 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>No, but unlike other investments, you get use value out of the house
>while you live in it.
> That needs to be considered in the win-lose
>equation.
What it really comes down to is whether your costs as a home owner are
more expensive than paying rent. And that depends on how much rent you're
paying and how fast you pay off the loan. My rent is about 4K / year,
the interest payments on a decent house in my area would be somewhat more.
--
Donovan
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:20:25 +1000
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"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.
>
> Of course they are; they cheat!
How ? In *detail*, explain how Microsoft's _products_ "cheat".
> I think its amusing how the whole array of apparent astroturfers have
> come out to attempt to refute ChrisV's statements. Mike Byrnes,
> 'JS/PL', Erik Funkenbusch, and Simon Cooke ALL responded individually
> during daytime hours to one guy pointing out that Microsoft doesn't have
> superior products, by any means.
Why ? Are people only allowed to express their opinions at night ?
> >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.
>
> Office got to be 'monopoly' because it was force-bundled with Windows
> ("accept this deal, or the price of Windows goes *way* up, or maybe
> we'll just 'audit' you....") and all the competitors where hampered by
Office got to be king after a long process of improvement until it was the
best.
> having to build on top of Win32, which was specifically engineered to
> prevent competition in the Office market.
Evidence, please, to support this even-more-than-normally outlandish claim
that Win32 is "specifically engineered to prevent competition in the Office
market".
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
I see you are a hypocrite, as well. Unless this .sig is supposed to be
sarcastic ?
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:16:34 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"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?
>
> That would depend on what law they may have violated in seeking such
> profits.
>
> >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.
>
> Well, it might have simply been an unindicted crime, but that's not the
> issue. You're correct, that there is not particular *amount* or
> *margin* of profit which is per se illegal. Nevertheless, it is illegal
> to make even 1% profit anti-competitively.
>
> >> >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.
>
> You're quite correct; what their profits are is irrelevant. They still
> have to act lawfully. Its only 'JS/PL's contention that the amount of
> profits is at all at issue, not mine.
So you are claiming you have never made the following statement, and a
hundred similar to this:
"Profiteering is evidence of monopolization, which is illegal."
source
http://x57.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=663017747.2&CONTEXT=970326485.1766195253&hi
tnum=20
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=Profiteering
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:41:26 -0400
"Donovan Rebbechi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 30 Sep 2000 11:04:42 GMT, Bob Hauck wrote:
>
> >No, but unlike other investments, you get use value out of the house
> >while you live in it.
> > That needs to be considered in the win-lose
> >equation.
>
> What it really comes down to is whether your costs as a home owner are
> more expensive than paying rent. And that depends on how much rent you're
> paying and how fast you pay off the loan. My rent is about 4K / year,
> the interest payments on a decent house in my area would be somewhat more.
When you rent 100% of your money goes out the window. There's no comparison
between renting and owning.
Factor in appreciation, tax deductions and there's alot of places in the
U.S. where ownership is profitable. Where I live, each monthly house payment
is less than my return in appreciation and deductions. I'm getting paid to
live in my house.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:15:47 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bruce Malmat) wrote in
<CaaB5.893$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>I heartily disagree.
Who are you disagreeing with? Your reply doesn't seem to be in context of
mine.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: Re: So did they ever find out what makes windows98 freeze up all the time?
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Pete Goodwin)
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:17:21 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Blacknight) wrote in
<cDeB5.4117$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>That is correct, However this threat is insinuting that Windows98
>freezes up all the time. And the fact is that it does not. There are
>plenty of people who have managed to run it nearly seemlessly myself
>included. I am not a Linux expert and do not claim to be, but I have had
>no problems using Windows in it's intended environment. For you to
>wholesalely deminish Windows to Not a Good Operating System is an unfair
>conclusion.
It varies from machine to machine. However, underneath Windows 98 is the
fact that it's a non-protected OS. Any one application can take out the
system, whereas on Linux or Windows 2000 this is not so easy.
--
Pete Goodwin
---
Coming soon, Kylix, Delphi on Linux.
My success does not require the destruction of Microsoft.
------------------------------
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: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 13:21:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> >No one can predict what the Appeals Court will do. Once you go to court
>> >in this country, all bets are off. Nothing would surprise me.
>>
>> Only because your entire understanding of jurisprudence is based on
>> 'popular wisdom', and the only capability which such an
>> over-simplification has of representing court decisions is as an endless
>> series of 'special cases' resulting in convoluted rules. This is a
>> false representation; in fact, the laws, both court and statutes, are
>> quite clear. Any anti-competitive act is a felony; if it isn't
>> 'restraint of trade', it is 'monopolization'. This is called the 'rule
>> of reason', and if you'd actually read enough court cases, you'd see (if
>> you can parse the rather complex and inferential text) that it is a
>> consisent guiding principle. The only reason one would be 'surprised'
>> by an appellate court decision is lack of understanding of the legal
>> principles involved.
>
>laws may be clear, but people's (and judges) interpretations of them
>differ. If they didn't, courts wouldn't need to adjudicate
The judges all share (generally) a single consistent interpretation of
the law; that's what the Supreme Court is all about. It is the facts
which are rarely clear, and the reason we need adjudication. My point
is that the "people's" understanding of the law is flawed by
over-simplification into 'popular wisdom' which presents the law as
arbitrary and convoluted, when in fact the law is not, nor is
interpretation of the law. The reason this 'popular wisdom' approach
makes it seem that interpretations differ is because the law is often
based on abstractions, such as the concept in anti-trust of "market
power" and "monopoly power", and most people have an apparently
under-nourished ability to grasp abstractions.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 13:27:51 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Simon Cooke in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >[...]The anti-trust case came about for the reasons that
>> >Jackson's conviction did -- Microsoft refused to play ball with the
>bureaucrats
>> >and pay their lunch ticket like McNealy, Ellison and Case did.
>>
>> Please be specific. What "lunch ticket" have these men, or the
>> corporations they represent, paid; when, and how much?
>
>for the full amount, you have to investigate:
>
>Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers (and the board members of the former, and
>their spouses) -- this is the venture capital firm behind the Java
>'Keiretsu' -- a japanese word which means collusion between companies.
>
>You also have to investigate Sun, AOL, Oracle -- their board members, their
>executives and their spouses.
>
>http://www.opensecrets.org/ should get you started.
It would be a long way from questionable activity of tech company board
members, which I would hardly be very skeptical about, to showing that
"Microsoft refused to play ball with the bureaucrats and pay their lunch
ticket" has anything to do with the anti-trust case. It seems to me
that Jackson's conviction had much more to with Microsoft holding an
illegal monopoly, and trying to use it to prevent competition in web
browsers.
The url isn't working at the moment, BTW. Some goofball put a private
address (10.n.n.n) in the DNS system.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 13:28:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >[...]The anti-trust case came about for the reasons that
>> >Jackson's conviction did -- Microsoft refused to play ball with the bureaucrats
>> >and pay their lunch ticket like McNealy, Ellison and Case did.
>>
>> Please be specific. What "lunch ticket" have these men, or the
>> corporations they represent, paid; when, and how much?
>
>Campaign contributions
Neither the judiciary nor the prosecuting attorneys have campaigns to
contribute to.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 13:31:31 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> You're quite correct; what their profits are is irrelevant. They still
>> have to act lawfully. Its only 'JS/PL's contention that the amount of
>> profits is at all at issue, not mine.
>
>So you are claiming you have never made the following statement, and a
>hundred similar to this:
>
>"Profiteering is evidence of monopolization, which is illegal."
No. But you are claiming that by 'profiteering' I was referring to a
specific amount of profit, which is not the case. You're still getting
tripped up on your inability to grasp abstractions, I'm afraid. If you
wish to discuss why profiteering is monopolization, fine. If you want
to discuss why monopolization is profiteering, fine. But either way,
you're going to have to deal with the fact that it is being derived from
illegal actions, not the particular level of profit, which is at issue.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 13:37:59 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Sherlock in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>Sheesh. You don't *have* to play the kill all the competition to win
>kind of game. Dell certainly haven't: they make quality computer systems
>at reasonable prices!
More importantly than that, you aren't *allowed* to play the 'kill all
the competition to win' kind of game.
>Are you trying to say that you need to do business in an immoral way to
>succeed?
Yes, I believe he is. And the fact is, in an anti-competitive market,
you cannot 'succeed' by being competitive.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 13:43:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Whatever - as marketing, it worked. Whether it's better doesn't really
>> >matter.
>>
>> You conveniently ignore the fact that being a 'superior product' is
>> allowable, and 'willful acquisition or maintenance of monopoly power' is
>> a crime.
>
>Then in your world, business is a crime. All business plans are geared
>toward market cornering. Some work better than others.
You are entirely wrong; not even merely mistaken. All business plans
which are geared towards 'cornering the market' are illegal. There are
many business plans which are not geared towards that, but simply geared
towards increasing sales.
>Do you honestly trust the DOJ more than MS? When was the last time that
>MS sent black clad, masked soldiers to kick down a door? When was the
>last time they shot a woman holding a baby?
You seem to be mistaking the DoJ with every paranoid fear you might have
about the government. Seriously, does the fact that they are 'black
clad, masked' soldiers have anything to do with the issue, or is it
merely an attempt to emotionally manipulate the reader? I think its
obvious that 'shooting a woman holding a baby' is pure hyperbole, in
this context. I trust the law more than I trust capitalists, yes. The
law is geared towards justice, capitalists are driven by greed. One is
a higher ideal supported by society, the other is a base desire
motivated by purely selfish interests.
If you're a Randite, like you seem, you're probably confused about which
is which.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== 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! ======
------------------------------
Reply-To: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "George" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.windows98
Subject: SE is simply unstable!!!
Date: Sat, 30 Sep 2000 17:49:07 GMT
I don't know about Linux, I have never tried it.
I'm a very small business and really don't need anything other than
something that will run my simple Quick Books business program, an Email
program, and a web browser. W98 did a fairly good job, but had problems. SE
crashes 5 times more than 98 did. When I use Netscape rather than IE, I have
considerably less crashes unless I crank up an MS application such as MS
Word .
The bottom line is that SE is simply unstable. I don't care what anyone says
in it's defense. When you can't run a simple home based business program on
a OS without it constantly crashing, there is something wrong.
When I first purchased my new Dell Inspiration 7500 series lap top, the only
software it had other than Norton AntiVirus, which I immediately removed
without even once using it, was MS software. Even before I installed
QuickBooks 6, the system locked up while I was using IE5.
If Linux or someone else had an affordable OS for the general public and
"could market it," I'm sure that I'm not the only one who's business they
would have.
I agree totally that if an OS can't run well written software "particularly
it's own," it isn't a very good OS...
--
George
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [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.
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
