Linux-Advocacy Digest #412, Volume #29 Tue, 3 Oct 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Unix rules in Redmond ("Drestin Black")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Mike Byrns)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The real issue (David M. Butler)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? ("kosh")
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 2 Oct 2000 22:11:03 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:y0bx5.3134$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:ODNw5.5040$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > > The Mindcraft tests showed a real problem, but one that would only
very
> > > rarely be an issue in a production system. The test was carefully
> > > designed to highlight a particular strength of NT relative to Linux.
> > > It was not "rigged", in the sense that the results weren't faked, but
> > > the thing that was tested was not chosen at random. The whole thing
> > > was a marketing exercise, nothing more.
> >
> > Um... so you think that multiple-NICs are never used in a production
> > system? Multiple-NIC load-balancing, etc?
>
> It is rare for that to be a better approach than using gigabit cards.
> Actually
> it is pretty rare for a server doing any actual work to be able to
overload
> a 100M card.
>
Actually you are wrong on both counts. YOu would be much better served
(performance and price wise) running two 100 mb/s NICs than a single Gb NIC.
I would run 4 NICs, 2 teamed pairs load balanced. But you'd have to
understand high end networking ....
You've never used RAID with REALLY big caches have you?
------------------------------
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: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:30:35 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >No, Word 2.0 for OS/2 was a completely graphical word processor.
>
> That's right. Stick a GUI on DOS Word and you get Word for OS/2. Word
> for Windows, however, was a separate and far more complete development.
How the hell do you just "stick" a GUI on a DOS based word processor? The
entire architecutres are different. How they represent their data is
different. How you control the applications are different. How you render
the final text is different.
That's like saying you can just "stick" wings on a car and make it an
airplane.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 03:13:48 -0000
On Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:20:08 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >The Adaptec ASPI driver problem?
>>
>> If the predominant SCSI vendor's cards can't be expected to work
>> on the predominant OS vendor's OS, you might as well build yourself
>> a cabin in the mountains and find a bear cub to rescue.
>
>The card works fine. ASPI is a low-level API for programs to access SCSI
>information. This isn't part of the OS itself, rather an API that Adaptec
>wrote and maintains.
>
>> Besides, if they didn't change their driver model so often, and
>> actually planned for forward compatibility, they wouldn't have
>> to worry about such things.
>
>That's the problem. Win95 was never supposed to exist in the first place.
>NT was supposed to replace Win 3.1, but people didn't buy into it. Win95
>was a stopgap to get people to start moving to Win32, but it took on a life
>of it's own as well, long beyond what MS had wanted.
>
>The market actually pushed MS into this predicament, they did not choose it.
The market doesn't really push MS anywhere.
These are the people that sandbagged on the desktop from 1984-1995.
--
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing.
-- Wernher von Braun
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 03:20:55 GMT
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> It was the Mon, 02 Oct 2000 01:00:30 GMT...
> ...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Well, here's my spin!
> > > If a couple of guys in some office somewhere can come up with an outlook
> > > express replacement which
> > > has the look and feel of outlook express and works better than outlook
> > > express, then what in the hell are
> > > you whining about Chad?
> >
> > Who's whining? I think it's amusing how, on one hand, the Penguinistas
> > bash MS for all sorts of things including look-and-feel and functionality
> > in Windows, yet take every chance to copy it because they can't come
> > up with anything that's a.) originally and b.) useful.
>
> "Hey, let's make cars with square wheels! At least they look
> original!"
And they all just do what the PARC Alto did. Maybe a little more color, maybe a
toolbar here or a UI tweak there. Why reinvent the wheel until something better
comes along? I'm all for suspensor fields replacing them but no one has
invented one yet :-)
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 03:26:54 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> At least history has a goal of discovering what happened, finding facts.
> Psychohistory only cares about finding motivations.
I would reverse that:
At least psychohistory has a goal of discovering why things
happened, finding motivations. History only cares about finding
irrelevant "facts."
Have you ever heard the aphorism "Those who never learn from
history are doomed to repeat it"? Do you seriously believe
that finding out tons of meaningless and unconnected "facts"
constitutes learning? What would you say to someone who claimed
that learning mathematics was rote memorization of unconnected
theorems? Or do you seriously believe that because A happened
before B is sufficient explanation for B?
> Since they can't be proven
> or disproven,
<rolleyes> Of COURSE they can be proven! If anything, it's the "facts"
that can't.
> what probably happens is that for every incident that they study,
> you end with several "proposals", which change in popularity according to
> fashion. Wanking.
What *probably* happens?
Go ahead, condemn something without knowing the first thing about it ....
> Sorry, did you say predicting the past?
Great, now you've never heard of retrodictions before!
When I study what happened between 200 and 300 years ago and I make
a statement about what I'll find if I study what happened 500 years ago,
that is a prediction.
Superstrings predicted gravity because physicists working on it never
put it into the theory, gravity *has* to be there for superstrings to be
internally consistent.
> >Next you'll be saying that there is no such thing as the "business class."
>
> Well, I usually fly coach ;-)
Which only proves that you're not part of the business class.
> >White collar employees are slaves. This is exactly what people at
> >the turn of the century believed and said before the giant American
> >propaganda industry was invented.
>
> Whatever. Any slave would disagree, I believe.
Next you'll be telling me that children who aren't beaten aren't
"really" abused and that any person who grew up severely beaten
every day would disagree with the statement that, say, extreme
neglect and emotional abandonment constitutes child abuse.
Don't speak on behalf of slaves, asshole; what they say might
surprise you.
> >> every cell. Replacing every cell in a human body would cause a cease
> >> of continuity, while the same thing doesn't happen in a corporation.
> >
> >Take some biology. EVERY cell, except for *some* nerve cells,
> >eventually gets replaced.
>
> You do so. You will probably never grow a brain cortex cell after your 9th
> birthday.
And you believe that this fact means what? That humans have a "soul"
that is housed in their brain cortex?
We were talking about the body. You claimed that if the human body
replaces all its cells then there can't be any continuity. But obviously,
there *is* continuity in the human body (and this continuity does not
come about from people having an immutable cortex) and every human
cell outside the brain *does* get replaced on a *regular* basis.
> Prove it. I don't think you can, since proving anyone thinks is quite hard.
If you can't prove that humans think then why the hell should I have
to prove that corporations think? Lovely double standard there.
And if you do want me to prove it then start by defining corporation,
thought, and thinking.
I'll start with:
thinking is the process of constructing thoughts
Now you have to rigorously define the artifacts of that process so that
we can detect them unambiguously.
> >Circular definitions are not in the nature of formal language.
>
> But they are in the nature of human language. We can only define words using
> words, and we refuse to not define any.
This is complete nonsense. You might get away with it for loose and
fuzzy (ie, informal) human thinking but not here and now.
Your claim that "we refuse to not define any [words]"
is utter bullshit. Most humans are utterly incapable
of rigorous definitions and "informal" ones don't count.
Words denote concepts and many concepts are not defined in terms
of other concepts. The concept "blue" is an abstraction of the PERCEPT
blue. Same with any other sensory concept. Abstract set theoretic
concepts are merely further abstractions of the resulting concepts.
> >Formal structures always end in one of three ways;
> > 1. infinite regress
>
> -- unacceptable and patently
> ridiculous
>
> > 2. circularity -- acceptable only if it's short-hand
> for a finite
>
> >
> set of definitions after it's been de-circularized
>
> > 3. arbitrary atoms -- perfectly acceptable
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> >Incorrect. All of the internals of corporations are available to
> >humans.
>
> I don't think so. Assuming your own analogy of employees as cells, we don't
> know how the cell works, and some cells take decisions important to the whole.
>
> So, we would only know how a corporation works if we knew how a man works, and
> we do not.
This is irrelevant because how corporations think is irrelevant. The only
question is whether they do or do not think. If all corporate thought were
reducible to individual humans then you could claim that corporations
don't think at all. In order to show that corporations think, one has only
to show that 1) corporate thought arises from human thought, and 2)
that it is separate from human thought.
It is in fact possible to know that the behaviour of organs is different from
the behaviour of individual cells without knowing how individual cells work.
One only has to know what individual cells *do*.
> > This is far better than humans, for whom the Solipsist
> >game is disgustingly effective (*). If corporations don't express
> >thought and you can't find any from looking at the internals,
> >then it doesn't have any thought.
>
> If the corporations'thought is the thought of the humans within (as I believe),
> the two problems are equivalent.
No, moron. If corporate thought is merely the thoughts of the humans
within in, then you've just proved that corporations don't think. In no
case are the two problems equivalent.
Your position is completely incoherent and beyond idiocy.
> >You *still* haven't defined a corporation it so I'll do it for you;
> >a corporation is a dictatorial decision-making structure that
> >transcends its slaves and other assets.
>
> Sorry, politics don't make for philosophy. By that definition, the army is a
> corporation.
My definition is inclusive, not exclusive. Armies *are* beings.
Anything I can prove from a weak definition of corporation I
can certainly prove from a stronger definition!
> >Corporations have will by definition. QED.
>
> That's a copout.
No, your not defining corporations, or anything else for that
matter, in anything resembling a rigorous manner and then
demanding that I do all of your work, THAT is a copout.
> >If you don't like a definition then show how it 1) includes a concept or
> >situation that it should not include, or 2) excludes a concept or situation
> >that it should include. The burden of proof rests on you.
>
> Ok, a computer program makes decisions. It uses its value system (the program)
> to make decisions about its input, and print them as output.
> I don't believe a definition of will should include computer programs.
Great, another moron who believes that Artificial Intelligence is not
"truly" intelligent. (Or should I say, an idiot who doesn't think about
even the simplest consequences of his statements?)
Primitive computer software possesses will to the same extent that
animals with primitive brains possess will. If a fly has will then Unix
certainly does.
> >It doesn't work that way because physics is not restricted to within
> >the boundaries of a hurricane. The human mind is restricted to the
> >boundaries of the human brain. The value system has to be integral
> >to the being, it can't lie /under/ the being because then it isn't
> >part of the being in any meaningful way.
>
> Are you saying that "Survival, Domination and Power" are integral and
> restricted to the boundaries of the corporation?
I was going to bash you for this because this is not what I said
and there is an obvious way to resolve this non-problem, but
considering this is the first thing you said that resembles a
valid objection ....
The value system that consists of ONLY "Survival, Domination
and Power" (ie, the typical corporate value system) does not
extend beyond the boundaries of the corporation. Caring for
survival isn't the same thing as caring ONLY for survival.
Nearly all humans care about power but only psychopaths lack
the empathy that mitigates their desire for power! A strict
subset of a set is not the same as that set.
You proposed a hurricane as a being with the laws of physics
as its value system. Fine, but the laws of physics inside of
a hurricane are *IDENTICAL*, not merely a subset or superset
of, the laws of physics outside of a hurricane. This difference
is crucial.
As a trivial example consider that almost every human being
likes children, but corporations do not like /any/ children,
not even the children of employees.
> >> Nonsense. That is a constraint on humans imposed by laws created by humans to
> >> be applied to humans.
> >
> >So the fact that cars cannot go through dense underbrush is a law?
>
> Yes, it's called impenetrabilty of solid objects.
And of course, this is a *HUMAN* law, right?
> >What about that cars cannot ride elevators or go up stairwells?
>
> Cars do that all the time around here. Elevators, not stairwells.
Then I clarify myself: human-sized elevators.
[endless examples]
> >murders a pedestrian? Are all of these things laws mandated by
> >human beings?
>
> And physics.
Physics does not mandate laws, it *describes* them!
Anyone who does not understand this most basic and
fundamental fact should never mention physics.
> >Single neurons *don't* *think*! If you don't believe this,
> >take a biology course or talk with a very patient biologist
> >who doesn't have access to a firearm, or knives or blunt
> >weapons, or anything that can be used as a weapon in any
> >way, shape or form. Preferably in a padded room ....
>
> Indeed they don't think. That's another reason why your analogy of "humans as
> corporate cells" is flawed. You are equaling parts that have no separate
> existence (cells) with parts that do (humans).
<rolleyes> Individual humans don't have any separate corporate
existence! An individual is not a corporation and is not capable
of corporate thought.
You're trying to mess up the analogy by applying it selectively.
And btw, a perfect analogy between X and Y is understood to
mean implicitly constructing an abstract concept and then
proving that it applies to both X and Y. So you can indeed prove
things by analogy, just not /formally/ prove them.
> >A "manager" without a corporation is the equivalent of a
> >single neuron. He is utterly incapable of any corporate thought
> >or corporate decision-making.
>
> I disagree. His decision-making is scaled-down, but it exists.
No, it does not. And anyone who says he does is denying the
patently obvious.
> >A person within the corporation that successfully mimicks
> >the signals of a manager unit is able to engage in corporate
> >decision making and is infinitely more of a "manager" than
> >the "genuine" manager outside of a corporation.
>
> So what? Or rather, that is yet another way on which your analogy is flawed.
> Cells in a body are not interchangeable, while humans in a corporation are.
So an engineer is interchangeable with a janitor?????
Just what the fuck are you talking about now?
You're engaging in spurious and selective thinking.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:45:31 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >And there you go again, claiming criminal conduct when anti-trust law is
> >civil, not criminal law. Criminal has very strict meaning in a court of
> >law.
>
> I don't know what you mean by "anti-trust law is civil". A *trial* is
> 'civil or criminal'. The *statute* (a major component of law) says that
> monopolizing is a felony. That sounds like criminal conduct, to me.
> Most cases, however, are brought in civil court, because reparations,
> not punishment, is being sought. The 'very strict' meaning of criminal
> is "against the law". As in, anti-trust violations are criminal
> conduct, whether they are criminally prosecuted or not.
A corporation cannot commit a felony. I've never heard of a corporation
being convicted of murder. PEOPLE can only be convicted of felonies.
*THAT* is why anti-trust is a civil matter, and not a criminal one.
A civil court case cannot establish criminal guilt.
> >What worked? We're talking about how you claim that Win32 was
"specifically
> >engineered" to prevent other office programs from working somehow. Back
up
> >that statement.
>
> It worked. Other office programs don't work as well as Microsoft ones.
> QED. Perhaps you aren't aware of the long history, going back a decade,
> of third party application developers complaining about Microsoft not
> fully disclosing their knowledge of the platform.
Please answer the question. *HOW* was Win32 "specifically engineered" to
prevent competition from other Office package vendors.
> >> Yes, but it wasn't dominating the application developers, yet, until
> >> after Win95 was released. Lots of developers were actually trying to
> >> use 'extensions' with DLLs the way MS said should be done. Little did
> >
> >What the hell are you talking about. There's no such thing as
"extensions"
> >with DLL's in Win32. Are you talking about Shell extensions? They
didn't
> >exist until Win95 was released, years later.
>
> Bullshit. You could add functionality to File Manager way back in
> Win3.1. I'm talking about 'extensions'; any kind. Figure it out.
No, do not try and pretend this is some generic "any kind" of statement.
Which extensions? Which vendors? If you can't answer these questions,
you're just making this shit up as you go along.
> >> they know (we pretend) that they would have to use more and more of the
> >> Win32 API itself, because MS would eventually bundle everything into
it,
> >> in order to minimize the control that application, and specifically
> >> middleware, developers might have to threaten the monopoly.
> >
> >This is gibberish. It makes no sense technically and is vague and hand
> >waving. You don't know what you're talking about, do you?
>
> Nice tap-dancing. Pretend its gibberish, and you don't have to respond
> to it. Or are you actually so ignorant you can't figure it out?
Your statements are contradictory and make no sense. What does "using more
of the API" have to do with " MS eventually bundling everything [whatever
that is refering to] into it"?
> >What does DR-DOS have to do with anything? In any event, Caldera has
> >dropped their suit against MS, and as such it cannot be used as an
example.
>
> Caldera won their suit against MS, and I don't know why you think that
> has anything to do with whether the DR-DOS AARD code cannot be used as
> an example of anti-competitive behavior.
No, Caldera did not win their lawsuit against MS. The trial never happened.
You can't win a court case that never occured.
> >> http://www.ripon.edu/Faculty/bowenj/antitrust/brkevb&w.htm
> >>
> >> I'm sure a lot of people where trying to compete with Windows. Too bad
> >> Win95 was not a competitive product, but an anti-competitive strategy
to
> >> perpetuate and extend a monopoly....
> >
> >You're still waving your hands around and mumbling things.
>
> You're still dissembling wildly.
Try saying something that you can back up, much less make sense of.
> >> As with Win3.1, MS had shifted, enclosed, hidden, and positioned Win32
> >> to the point that with Win95, every vendor except Microsoft had to go
> >> through the same "hunt and peck" method of attempting to stay
compatible
> >> with Microsoft's OS. And you pretend to say that in a competitive
> >> market, these superior products wouldn't have been able to compete with
> >> Microsoft "hey, buy this, and Windows gets cheaper" Office package.
> >
> >Lots of developers had Win95 software ready on the day Win95 was
released.
>
> Lots of it didn't work very well because of monkey business by MS.
Microsoft had a vested interest in seeing Win95 succeed. They needed to
help payoff their investment in Win32. The only way for that to succeed was
to have 3rd party apps that worked as well as possible. That's what the
wide beta releases were for, and that's why MS went to so much trouble to
make Win95 so backwards compatible with Win 3.1 and DOS.
> >Those developers could have ported their apps to NT years before, and
then
> >only needed minor modifications to make work under 95. They chose not to
> >though.
>
> LOL.
That's what MS did with Office. They had 32 bit ports for NT almost a year
before Win95 hit the streets.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 22:52:51 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >That's the problem. Win95 was never supposed to exist in the first
place.
> >NT was supposed to replace Win 3.1, but people didn't buy into it. Win95
> >was a stopgap to get people to start moving to Win32, but it took on a
life
> >of it's own as well, long beyond what MS had wanted.
> >
> >The market actually pushed MS into this predicament, they did not choose
it.
>
> The market doesn't really push MS anywhere.
>
> These are the people that sandbagged on the desktop from 1984-1995.
If you honestly believe that MS *CHOSE* to support two seperate platforms
for the last 7 years, your crazy. Why would MS have invested billions of
dollars in the development of NT, then let it sit there while it's cheaper
cousin makes all the money?
Microsoft wanted people to move to NT. It didn't happen. MS had no other
choice than to continue to support and upgrade Windows 3.x until they could
convince users to upgrade to Win32.
------------------------------
From: David M. Butler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The real issue
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:44:33 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Wordperfect suite that runs NATIVELY under it's own OS instead of some
> Wine hack?
I use KDE's office suite. Works just fine, free, loads up in about 2
seconds, doesn't seem to crash on me, has all the functionality I need...
it is still beta software, but it works just fine.
I won't comment on the sound apps, since I only use a simple MP3 player.
> It's terrible, Netscape that is, and ironic that the OS that powers a
> lot of the internet has such a poor excuse for a browser. IE blows
> Netscrape out of the water, as long as you keep up with it's security
> flaws :)
Konqueror works nicely as of late. Current beta version seems to handle
most web pages nicer than Netscape (in my opinion anyway)... getting close
to IE quality. Doesn't seem to crash. Memory monitor says it takes up
about 2-3 megs when loaded, which is a bit better than Netscape or IE.
Once again, this is still beta... just pointing out alternatives.
> >Wordperfect also isn't the only word processor available.
>
> But it's really the only commercial competitor to Word, even under
> Windows. And under Linux it is a joke. Wine based hack..Pathetic...
See above office suite comments.
Also, the mail/news software for K is rather nice, so no WINE is needed.
(Yes, I'm a little biased towards K, if no one had guessed...)
D. Butler
------------------------------
From: "kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 21:33:56 -0600
<snip for brevity>
>
> Amazing how the rest of the world finds NVIDIA to be the single best
> chipset and drivers combination of every video card out there... I never
> cease to be amazed that only linux users manage to have trouble running
> windows and using the most stable drivers in existance... sheesh...
>
You might want to talk to some nvidia driver reps then. They are targeting
speed over stability. Their cards do crash strangely when doing opengl
devel. Their early W2K driver did have a lot of stability problems on
almost all non intel chipsets. That same base driver is used for linux so
that the same driver is used for all platforms. That means linux also has
those issues. Nvidia is not interested in stability, they are interested
in pure speed. I have been told this directly by more then one nvidia
driver writer. These are not lies or exaggerations if you feel they are
then go ahead and talk to some driver reps. Also look in deja.com over the
newsgroup archives and you will see these problems. If you want also look
though some game bulltetin boards like ones for Diablo 2, Ground Control,
Homeworld, HalfLife etc for nvidia geforce problems and in almost every
one you will find problems. Nvidia is very quick to blame everyone but
themselves but the truth is they write very fast piss poor drivers.
When I told them a driver should not fail ever except in the case of
hardware failure I was laughed at. However that is the standard to which
other linux drivers are held. I have not once crashed X running on a
matrox card. I have had my sound driver die and get unloaded then just
reload it. When the nvidia driver dies because it hooks into kernel space
it takes everything with it. They felt that a ~5% speed penalty was not
worth the huge increases in stability they would get for moving the driver
out of kernel space. Next time before you answer someone like this please
look up a little more information first.
------------------------------
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: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 23:44:49 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> By supporting their clients, so that the systems which remain
>functional
>> >> are operational enough to support mere maintenance, over the incessant
>> >> and repetitive upgrades/re-architectures necessary to support Exchange,
>> >> which really does suck, in the end. Too bad its tied to the monopoly
>> >> via NT, and is anti-competitive to the extreme.
>> >
>> >Lotus is not tied to any monopoly. They have servers for several
>platforms
>> >(AIX, OS/2, NT...) and clients on several others, plus a Java client.
>>
>> Did I say anything about Lotus being tied to a monopoly?
>
>Yes, you did. How do you manage to not even read your own quotes?
>
>You said "Too bad its tied to the Monopoly via NT" "its" clearly meaning
>Lotus in this context.
And 'the monopoly' obviously means Microsoft, and 'NT' obviously means
NT, the leading server OS used to run Notes servers. So why did you
say, "Lotus is not tied to any monopoly?"
>> >So you're suggesting that IBM, AOL, and Intuit are all anti-competitive
>in
>> >themselves. Who isn't anti-competitive?
>>
>> RedHat.
>
>Interesting that quite a few people in Linux camps think RedHat is using
>anti-competitive measures against the other distributions. RPM for
>instance.
>
>
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
