Linux-Advocacy Digest #557, Volume #29 Mon, 9 Oct 00 22:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: The Power of the Future! (Dolly)
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum (spicerun)
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) (Marty)
Re: The Power of the Future! (dc)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: Unix rules in Redmond (.)
Re: The Power of the Future! (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes) (Marty)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Andrew Carpenter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Mon, 9 Oct 2000 18:06:17 -0700
"Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:bktE5.50461$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Actually, one of the main reasons Win32 is so HUGE (28 million lines of
> code, or something in that neighborhood) is that Microsoft spends at least
> as much time making the API a "moving target" (Bill Gates' words, not
mine)
> as it does actually trying to fix or improve anything.
Which of course explains why all my apps inexplicably stop working every few
months when they "move the target" and change *all* of the APIs.
Come on... I mean, heck, WINE should have a good copy of Win3.1 by now at
least. That target stopped moving in 1995. That was 5 years ago.
Does it?
Nope.
Simon
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 21:13:57 -0400
From: Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
> The thing they seem to be missing is a report of what the websites serving the
>greatest
> number of hits are running for server software and OS. Take a look at
> http://www.biznix.org/surveys/ and see that the Fortune 500 run IIS on Windows 2.5
>times
> more than Apache on all other platforms combined. This is backed up by
> http://www.entmag.com/displayarticle.asp?ID=6150095626AM and
> http://www.e-gineer.com/articles/web-servers-used-at-the-top-sites.phtml.
Unfortunately, our experience is that 3-6 times the
Win2K/NT hardware is required to match a Linux/Apache
Warp/Domino install BSD/Apache install...
then again, even MS knows this, so HotMail still runs
BSD/Apache and only the front page runs on IIS to
thinly veil that fact... in years not even they
could get it to work with 10 times the servers. Those
are also facts you can look up in a number of
magazines - and this time I wont even bother to
provide the links.
D
>
> As for eCommerce IIS is used over twice as much as any other server software. Buy
> you'll have to buy Netcraft's report to see that :-) or just do a websearch.
------------------------------
From: spicerun <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:12:16 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > http://www.wininformant.com/display.asp?ID=2944
> >
> > Making a modern operating system isn't that easy after all: Linux creator
> > Linus Torvalds announced the third major delay in the release of the next
> > Linux kernel last week, placing the release of Linux 2.4 in late 2000 or
> > early 2001 at the earliest. The Linux 2.4 kernel, which was original due to
> > ship in October 1999, has now been in the works for almost two years
> >
> > ...Linux is a different beast altogether, and proponents have argued that
> > the open source development model is superior to the closed, monolithic
> > models used by Apple and Microsoft. But the public failure of both Linux and
> > Netscape, with its Mozilla/Netscape 6 project, to deliver upgrades on
> > schedule is now casting doubts on the entire open source process.
> >
> > "...But today, Linux is not very useful beyond simple Web, mail, and DNS
> > services on small Intel-based servers, she says. Linux is "not for database
> > servers or online transaction processing. The independent software vendor
> > support [is not there]"
> >
> > <yawn>
>
> Given that some people on this group (!) have run 2.4 so you still think
> yourself justified.
Check my headers (linux-2.4.0-test9)
> It may not be considered stable, but then win98, by the same standards
> isn't
2.4.0-test9 has been much more stable for me than Windows ME (and Windows NT
4.0/sp6 at work). I've never had to reboot my machine running 2.4.0-test9, but I
have had to restart both the WinME and Windows NT machines more times than I can
count on one hand last week.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:11:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Marty writes:
>
> >>>>> David T. Johnson wrote:
>
> >>>>>> Marty wrote:
>
> >>>>>> [repetitive comments snipped]
>
> >>>>> Sorry David, you lose.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
>
> >>>> Practice what you preach, Marty.
>
> >>> I wasn't the one preaching about off-topic posting while writing such
> >>> postings.
>
> >> You were the one preaching about "stop being a hypocrite and grow up",
> >> Marty.
>
> > Very good, Dave.
>
> So why did you bring up "off-topic posting", Marty?
Just staying on topic. Look at the thread topic.
------------------------------
From: dc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:14:14 -0500
On Mon, 09 Oct 2000 20:36:03 -0400, Dolly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>were needed. dual processors each, 512MB RAM. Oooh the
>joy of serving 100X the content to 10X the people on ONE
>OS/2 box. From what I understand Linux is as proficient
>or almost as proficent as Warp in that respect. And IBM's
>claim is that Warp's TCP/IP stack is "the best" (not "one
>of", or "almost") TCP/IP stack there is. Period. It shows.
>It took till Win2K for MS to "borrow" an almost complete
>TCP stack. They still didnt get it right. They also still
>seem to have bound NetBIOS to port 139... how weird. Just
>gotta send it the right commands and it suddenly responds.
>Or just leave that 2K box on long enough for MS to start
>sending you messages about updates you need.
Duh - turn it off. It's not rocket science.
>But that's a little off the topic... the point is, even
>if MS eliminated all the security holes (and ya need
>to plug Win2K first before any claim of IIS5 security
>is valid), it cant serve worth anything in comparison
>to Linux, OS/2, BSD or OSX for that matter.
Nonsense.
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:18:19 GMT
Roberto Alsina wrote:
> El lun, 09 oct 2000, Richard escribió:
> >Except that "crystals of H2O" isn't H2O anymore than "a chain of monomers"
> >is a bunch of monomers.
>
> The molecules in the crystal are H2O molecules. Again, ask a chemist, he will
> explain it to you. They are arranged in a crystaline structure.
And the particles in an atom are arranged in a nucleus. This doesn't
make atoms into protons and neutrons.
The quantum chromodynamics lattice equations you need to solve any
system of protons (or even a single proton) are intractable. The
quantum electrodynamics equations that describe how nuclei retain
their electrons are marginally less intractable (they are solveable
for trivial systems). The equations that describe molecular bonds
on a higher level of abstraction are much easier still. The equations
that govern different states of matter are still different and even
easier. Those equations are discontinuous at phase transitions.
Perhaps you'd like to insist that people use harder equations to
showcase the uniformity between different phases of matter but if
you do so then there is no good reason to object to my insisting
on using QCD and QED to showcase the uniformity of different ele-
ments. But those are intractable, so too fucking bad. While we're
at it, I'll also insist you use superstrings equations to showcase
the deep uniformity between all matter, energy and spacetime. We
can stop talking about water, ice, steam, lead, gold, hydrogen, or
even about neutrinos and elecrtons because we can EASILY talk about
superstrings. According to you, everything is just superstrings
and the differences between these superstrings are trivial and
completely irrelevant. Thank you very much for forcing this kind
of situation upon us, mindless reductionistic moron.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Unix rules in Redmond
Date: 10 Oct 2000 01:19:04 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8rt8c6$t84$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:8rr995$17l2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:8roql5$mit$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> Where is it again? [Windows 2000 Data Center]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > It's released and in use already.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Where?
>> >>
>> >> > <snip>
>> >>
>> >> > did you even read further down where you replied before you wrote
>> > "Where?"
>> >> > See, you KNOW it's been released but you play stupid (it's comes easily
>> > I
>> >> > understand)...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >> > small starting point:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >
>> > http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/guide/datacenter/studies/default.asp
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Ah. Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even come close to touching
>> > IBM
>> >> >> in any way, shape or form.
>> >> >>
>> >>
>> >> > Let me requote this again: "Nope, microsoft/compaq can still not even
>> > come
>> >> > close to touching IBM in any way, shape or form."
>> >>
>> >> > OK, lets go here (you said ANY way):
>> >> > http://www.tpc.org/new_result/ttperf.idc
>> >>
>> >> > Lets see: IBM's ultimate very best attempt ever: 440,879 tpm/C for
>> >> > $14,232,696.
>> >>
>> >> > Wait, what's ABOVE it (in 1st place): microsoft/compaq: 505,302 tpm/C
>> > for
>> >> > only $10,445,169.
>> >>
>> >> > Why, what's this? ms/compaq 15% faster and 36% less expensive.
>> >>
>> >> Youve missed something rather large here, which I have no intention of
>> >> teaching you, but has something to do with this: The compaq machine
>> > tested
>> >> is the absolute top of the line piece of hardware that they make. Its
>> >> compaqs flagship model. It doesnt get better than that.
>> >>
>> >> The IBM machine tested, on the other hand, is an ultimately upgraded
>> >> representation of their intel-based webserver product.
>> >>
>>
>> > So, does this actually make sense? IBM decides to test their NOT best
>> > product against everyone elses best?
>>
>> > I mean, think about it. What sense does it make for IBM to not use their
>> > best possible performer? Why are they holding back, if you are to be
>> > believed. Why would they allow themselves to be beaten? I don't think so.
>> > AND, while it is the best Compaq they have available today - no one suggests
>> > it's the end of the road for thier developement. Compaq has 32 processor
>> > beasties coming out that run W2K datacenter which will eat the previous best
>> > scores for lunch.
>>
>> You're right, dresden. How could I have ever doubted you. IBM's 4096
>> processor mainframe solution will never be able to hold a candle to W2K
>> running on 32 processors.
>>
>> Yep.
> Then why hasn't IBM entered this beast into the running and nuked
> all the competition?
Because its not a "web solution", though it can be used as such.
There are alot of companies which make enormous machines that are fully
capable of blowing everything that compaq makes completely away.
=====.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Power of the Future!
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:05:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Sam wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, 07 Oct 2000 15:03:43 GMT, Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Is of course Linux.
> >
> > Exclusively ? I think not!
Probably not exclusively. Microsoft has established a huge machine
base. Unfortunately, they have also tried to kill their own children.
Most of the 500 million machines that ran Windows 3.1 will not run
Windows 95 or Windows 98. And most of the 300 million machines that ran
Windows 95 won't run Windows 98. And most of the 100 million machines
that run Windows 98 won't run Windows 2000 or Windows ME.
Even the 60 million Windows NT 4.0 machines require additional
memory to run Windows 2000.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, Linux can run on nearly all of
those Windows 3.1 machines (80386 or better), all those
Windows 95, Windows 98, and Windows NT 4.0 machines. It's
still a bit of a stretch to run on the Windows 98 machines
(Linux needs full USB support, DeCSS for DVD, and support for
Winmodems). On the other hand, this is the smallest portion of
the total marketplace.
Meanwhile, WINE can support much of the "obsolete" 3rd party software
that was torpedoed by Windows 95-B, Windows 98, and Windows 98 SE,
along with much of the software that didn't like NT SP4 and Win2K.
> > >The power of Linux is of course the GNU/GPL.
> > It may also be it's weakness.
In a sense, this is true. Linux' greatest hurdles come from the fact
that misinformed IHVs and ISVs assume that they must violate
nondisclosure agreements and publish source to create drivers for
Linux. Although this is the preferred method, it's possible to build
proprietary binary-only modules for Linux. Then only the module "hook"
needs to be open-sourced.
> > >Does everybody agree that Linux has the best desktop? NO, HELL NO!
Linux offers several desktops to choose from, and you can mix
and match. Microsoft offers one per operating system, and a very
limited set of themes.
The actual desktops themselves aren't significantly different.
Ironically, Microsoft adopted Linux "look and feel" techniques for
it's "Active Desktop" and Windows 2000 interfaces.
In fact, Microsoft has often benefitted from innovations
introduced by the UNIX and Linux communities. In many cases,
Microsoft has dragged it's feet for years, only to announce to
an uninformed public the new "innovations" which were little more
than adaptations of UNIX and Linux features to Microsoft's proprietary
and exclusive software model.
> > >Is Linux still growing? YES HELL YES!
Current indicators is that Linux continues to grow at about 10%/MONTH,
essentially doubling every 6-8 months. The official number is 270%
growth on an annual quarter-to-quarter basis. There are ebbs and
flows within that range when growth can jump by 20% in a month, or ebb
to 5%/quarter for 2-3 quarters. The slowest time was the release of
Windows NT 4.0 and the following two quarters (roughly 5%/month), and
the fastest time was July of 1999 when VALinux systems reported growth
of 270%/Quarter (which triggered competition from IBM, Compaq, Dell,
and HP).
> > From zero it's all up from there
> > <snip>
Very true. Linux was released in November 1991 and grew to 1000 users
in it's first month. Within 3 months it had grown to 10,000 users, and
from there it grow to about 1 million licenses shipped in March 1994.
The year ending March 2000, nearly 20 million Linux licenses were
officially reported as shipped. This did not include CDs distributed
by companies like Cheap-Bytes and Linux Mall at $2/copy.
By the year ending March 2001, it is estimated that nearly 60
million licenses will be shipped, either in the form of
shrink-wrapped software or in the form of preinstalled versions
of Linux on everything from PDAs to TIVO boxes to tuxtops (Linux
enabled laptops) and tuxstations (Linux enabled workstations).
There are legal barriers erected by Microsoft which prevent
the coinstallation of both Linux and Windows on the same hard
drive, but this is likely to change if Linux establishes enough
of a market share to make Microsoft want to piggy-back the Linux
market.
Keep in mind, Micrososft went paranoid when Netscape captured
20 million Windows Users, risking a contempt of court trial and
an antitrust trial rather than risk the possibility that Web Browsers
would shift the "application logic" to UNIX and UNIX programmers.
> > >How fast is Microsoft growing on that hill top? 1%.
> >
> > If Microsoft kept growing at the rate it did for the last 5-10-15-20
> > years (pick one) it would soon be, not only the total IT industry,
> > but the entire economy. Obviously not sustainable
Actually, Microsoft revenues from Operating Systems sales are down
significantly. In fact, the top-line actually shrank by over 20%
last quarter. Furthermore, Windows ME isn't setting any sales
records either. This is actually a good thing since Microsfot is
trying to drive business and professional users to Windows 2000.
The question remains whether users will happily pay as much
as $400 for upgrades to Windows 2000. Furthermore, many IT
professionals are very upset that they can no longer do
Windows 2000 server development on their laptops and
workstations because most of the server applications now
refuse to install themselves on anything other than a
Windows 2000 server.
One would think by now, that Microsoft would know better than
to alienate the developer community. Microsoft is driving
mindshare into the Linux and UNIX camp. This may be some attempt
at nullifying the Verdict that it is a monopoly which abuses it's
monopoly powers. Microsoft may be shooting itself in the toe
to prevent the courts from stopping it's exclusionary contracting
practices.
Or it could be shooting itself it the head. Paul Allen has sold
the majority of his Microsoft stock, has stepped down from
the board of directors, and has shifted his resources and
attention to Transmeta and Linux. It may be that Allen is getting
ready for a coup that would take the PC market away from
Microsoft/Intel and shift it to Transmeta/Linux. If that's the
case, I salute Mr Allen. Even if he "fails", it could be incredibly
profitable.
> > >How fast is Linux growing? 5 - 7 % per year for almost 8 years.
Actually, Linux is growing at 5-10% per MONTH for nearly 8 years.
Red Hat's Bob Young was the first to officially track Linux sales
and statistics, but many others, including IDC, DataQuest, and Gartner
have been shifting a great deal of attention to Linux growth. The
annual growth rate ranges from around 220%/anum (tripling each year)
to 290%/anum (nearly quadrupling every year) for the same metrics.
Since the IPOs of companies like Red Hat, and the publication of Linux
related numbers by Corel, Applix, and McMillan, the growth has shown
itself to be pretty broad and consistent. The worst number came from
Corel who reported less than spectacular results with it's Debian
Linux distribution. The best numbers came from VALinux and Cobalt,
each of whom have been enjoying top-line growth of as much as 270% per
quarter (annualized to nearly 1200% or 13 times previous year sales).
> > From zero it's all up from there
Good point. Until 1998, most of the Linux licenses were sold as
server licenses. Linux enjoyed a mere 2% of the total installed
base, and even that was hard to substantiate. More recently, SQUID
has provided a Linux-only signature that has shifted the numbers
substantially. Instead of publishing a browser type, it is type CGI.
This signature now accounts for nearly 3% of the total traffic. The
growth is substantial.
Linux is also establishing a niche in set-top boxes. The TIVO set-top
box has become remarkably popular and adds several million to the
uncounted Linux user catagory.
> > <snip>
> >
> > > Does Microsoft make hardware?
> > > Hardly, NO. That Microsoft mouse or
> > > keyboard is subcontracted out.
> > > They don't make anything but software.
Actually a key source of Microsoft's revenue is now it's holdings in
other companies. They don't even "make software", they simply license
intellectual property to OEMs, VARs, ISVs, IHVs, and ISPs. The most
dramatic example of this is the release of "medialess" licenses of
Windows 2000 to corporate users. Since the corporations only need
a few CDs for authorized installers who "reengineer" failed machines,
they can reduce the risk of piracy (lawsuits) by purchasing licenses
without media.
> > AMD don't own a fab shop,
> > does that make them not a threat to Intel?
AMD does own a fab shop. AMD originated because US Government
contracts required alternate sourcing. Intel Licensed the masks
for the 8086 and 80286 to AMD. AMD actually fixed the protection
and memory mode bugs and licensed that technology back to Intel.
Intel and AMD battled it out in the courts over the 80386 and 80486,
and when Intel refused to License the Pentium to AMD, AMD came out
with the K5 chip, which ran in an 80486 socket.
Since this time, AMD has used it's own foundries to create it's own
chips. Much to the frustration of Intel, AMD has provided backward
compatibility with next generation performance at nearly half the
price of the Intel chip and nearly 1/3 the price of the entire
"Intel solution".
For those of us who shop computer fairs, it's always enlightening
to see a DURON machine selling for $400 while a comperably equipped
Pentium III at comperable speed runs nearly $900.
When you add the RAM and ROM required for Windows 2000, the Pentium
solution pushes to nearly $1400 for a legal W2K workstation, compared
to $450 for an AMD/Linux workstation.
Of course, if you DO decide you want that Windows 2000 machine, you
don't have to "throw away" that old Pentium 300. You copy the old
partitions to the new machine, install Linux, and you now have the best
of both worlds. With VNC, you can even access the Win2K machine from
the Linux console.
> Really? That's weird... AMD has MADE chips for
> Intel when Intel couldnt keep up...
This was a long time ago.
> what do you
> think the little M AMD meant?
I believe it stands for Advanced Micro Devices.
> MANUFACTURED by
> AMD. I have a bunch here they made for Intel.
As mentioned above, AMD did originate as an alternate
source provider for Intel, but they have since gone their
seperate ways.
Today, Intel won't even licence the Slot2 bus to AMD. And AMD
uses a radically different mask and architecture. Only the
instruction set remains the same.
> It's part of what gained them access to the
> Intel x86 architecture - making a bunch for
> Intel when they were in the bind.
Again, prior to Reagan/Bush, all government contracts required
at least 3 competitive bids, which included proof of alternate
suppliers. If you wanted a Jeep, AMC had to reference the Ford
Cherokee (or whatever) as an "Alternate source".
Under Reagan's second term, he simplified the procurement process
by eliminating the "nonsense" of trying to write a 5000 page
engineering specification when you could simply ask for a "jeep".
Part of the problem was that the specification was usually provided
by the manufacturer of the desired commodity, but since the RFQ had
to be farmed out to multiple companies, the engineering from one
company would end up in a competitor's hands by virtue of the
specification.
Eventually, the bidding system was simplified such that an RFQ could
simply read "Intel 80486 or equivalent". In some cases, the known
alternatives would also be listed.
Bush further simplified the process, and Clinton simplified it to
"list three competitive products by brand-name". If an "outsider"
wanted to make a case for it's ability to satisfy the requirements,
they could provide feature-by-feature comparisons.
Unfortunately, in the case of Microsoft, this has been a big problem.
Ironically, the government has a difficult with Microsoft, because
there is no "Alternate source" for Windows NT 4.0, or Office 2000.
In some cases, Microsoft even has to compete with itself because
the specification is for an earlier product (for which there are
competitive products). For example, court proceedings must be filed
it WordPerfect metafile format. This format is provided by various
versions of Office, but the clerk has to configure the word processor
to prepare documentst in word format.
> Dolly
>
> > <big snip due to boredom>
> >
> > Sam
>
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 50 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Off-topic Idiots (Was Bush v. Gore on taxes)
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 01:24:59 GMT
"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > >
> > > Marty wrote:
> > > >
> > > > "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Marty wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > [repetitive comments snipped]
> > > >
> > > > Sorry David, you lose.
> > >
> > > Well, I have certainly lost in the name-calling category.
> >
> > Not even close. I lost too many points in that category for supporting my
> > claims with examples and facts.
>
> Typical nonsensical, illogical gibberish.
More repetition of your inappropriate catch-phrase, but at least you offer an
explanation this time...
> 'Not even close' has no meaning in the context used.
The context was a loss on your part (presumably in an infantile game of some
sort). "Not even close" refers to your call on who "lost" this "game". It
applies perfectly well, as I go on to explain how such a game, had it existed,
would have been won by yourself.
> No indication of what 'losing points' refers to and why 'losing points'
> is relevant to the discussion.
Take that up with the person who brought it up. Here's the relevant quote:
DTJ] Well, I have certainly lost in the name-calling category.
> No indication of why your alleged supporting of claims with examples
Nothing "alleged" about them. I've reproduced them more than once, in fact.
Would you like me to reproduce them again so you can feel more comfortable
with and certain of their existence?
> and facts is relevant to the name-calling you have repeatedly indulged in.
"Namecalling" implies that this is all that was done. I have applied labels
to your behavior appropriately and explained how such labels were appropriate,
in much the same way as a scientist classifies a new life form based on its
traits.
> > > Congratulations.
> >
> > To you.
>
> Illogical as the congratulations were for you for winning the
> name-calling competition.
This from the person who just said:
DTJ] No indication of what 'losing points' refers to and why 'losing
DTJ] points' is relevant to the discussion.
> You have called me a "hypocrite,"
And I explained why.
> "liar,"
And I explained why.
> "mime,"
And I explained why.
> "troll,"
And I explained why.
> "club president,"
And I explained why.
> and "Net Cop"
And I explained why.
And all of this explanation was removed by you without a single response to
it.
> while also also accusing me
"Typical nonsensical, illogical gibberish."
How ironic.
> of "mudslinging"
And I explained why.
> and claiming that I had a "hard-on" for Wenham.
And I explained how the metaphor applied.
> In contrast, I have only called you a 'liar' and a 'hypocrite.'
Without any justification.
> Clearly, you win and are deserving of the congratulations.
Thanks for admitting that I've won the argument. Now move on with your life.
> > > > Stop being a hypocrite and grow up.
> > > >
> > > > "[repetitive comments snipped]"
> >
> > Note: no response, and the hypocrisy continues.
>
> Interesting that you expect to see a response to your imperative.
It was wishful thinking, admittedly. I could not have realisitically expected
you to stop being a hypocrite nor grow up on my command. Point taken.
> Apparently, even you realize the absurdity of the comment that your
> statement makes.
Apparently you're suffering from reading comprehension problems again.
> No surprise there.
Likewise.
------------------------------
From: Andrew Carpenter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2000 11:00:18 +1030
Simon Cooke wrote:
>
> Come on... I mean, heck, WINE should have a good copy of Win3.1 by now at
> least. That target stopped moving in 1995. That was 5 years ago.
>
> Does it?
> Nope.
Why do you think that is?
You don't really think all 300-odd developers on the project are idiots
(and have been for the past 7 years) do you?
Anyone else? We've had the expected "MS Conspiracy" theory presented --
what other reasons are there for Wine's limited success?
(limited, but not actually that bad; it apparently runs several popular
games quite well, including StarCraft and others...)
Andrew
[ opinions are my own ]
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
