Linux-Advocacy Digest #611, Volume #29 Thu, 12 Oct 00 00:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Les Mikesell")
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Michael Marion)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Michael Marion)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
Re: what defines a paradigm (FM)
Re: The Power of the Future! (joseph)
Re: The Power of the Future! (joseph)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Weevil")
Re: The Power of the Future! (joseph)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively ("JS/PL")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (John Lockwood)
Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-) (Paul Colquhoun)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (John Lockwood)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Timberwoof)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 02:11:59 GMT
"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:JW1F5.275$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > No, my original point was that there are no hard numbers which suggest
> > that
> > > Apache is used in more servers. As I said, it may be, but I see no
> > numbers
> > > to validate this assertion.
> >
> > What is wrong with the numbers at:
> > http://www.netcraft.com/survey/ ?
>
> If you had bothered to read any other messages in the thread, you'd know.
>
> Netcraft does not survey the number of actual servers. It only surveys
the
> number of hostnames, which has no bearing whatsoever on how many actual
> installations there are. A single server can have 1000 hostnames assigned
> to it, and a single hostname can be load balanced across hundreds of
> servers.
That's true, but I don't see how it relates to anything. Why does it matter
if 1000 domains run in a single box or 1000? The software choice
is the issue, and they are choosing apache.
> > And would you have argued with them in the not-so-distant past
> > when you couldn't keep IIS running for a week at a time?
>
> While i've never seen an installation of IIS that couldn't run for a week
> (unless it had very poor ISAPI extensions installed), this statement has
> nothing to do with the topic we're discussing.
Try running NT with less than SP3. No one in their right mind was
running NT in production then - or at least they didn't stay sane if
they tried. Did you believe the Netcraft numbers then?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[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: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 02:13:04 GMT
Drestin Black wrote:
> sigh - but see, you paint your experience as a blanket statment: "their (not
> there) drivers, though, have lacked a lot recently" - I disagree and I say
Yeah yeah.. I typoed. You conveniently ignore the links to sites that were
posted listing hundreds (if not thousands) of people out there with similar
issues. _That's_ what I based my statement on, not just my own experience.
> there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Det 3 is the 6th generation
> of these drivers - if you think that hardcore graphics addicts are willing
> to put up with 5 generations of broken drivers you have not done your
> history lessons. Why would these broken drivers fueled the most
Considering that Geforce chips have been out much longer then w2k, I'd say a
good reason they "put up with" those drivers is because they were playing
games on 98, 98SE, 95, etc. The issues we were discussing were with Nvidia's
w2k drivers... _they_ were definately not top-notch drivers, as can be shown
by reading experiences on 3d gaming sites. Now that they've been improved,
they're great.
> successful/popular chipset? You'd think if what you say is true - that
> almost everyone has problems with them and they suck - that they shouldn't
> have survived so long and become the number 1 video card OEM. Something is
> not right here don't you think. Where is the logic? We can assume that you
> are right and that everyone is stupid enough to keep buying broken
> cards/drivers and that reviewers are just lucky enough to never have
> experenced blue screens while doing 96 hour torture tests in Quake III on
> three different platforms because on one seems to have posted a success
> story to one sites' forum for hardware problems.... or, as I say, they have
> a solid combo and that most people experience great success with them and
> that generally speaking you just need to figure out what you're doing wrong
> and they'll give you the same great performance everyone else is
> reporting...
Sheesh, this whole argument ignores the fact that people were most likely
using windows != 2k with those cards. Now that 2k is out, and is orders of
magnitude more stable then win9x, but still able to play games.. many people
are moving from 9x to it. That's when the driver issue began to hit people,
I'm just one of them.
> sidenote: via chipsets vs w2k was a known issue - addressed recently. A
> failing in the AGP port driver - not sure who's fault actually as I never
> use via motherboards.
Which is fixed with a registry setting and an AGP driver from VIA.. both of
which I installed awhile ago, before det3 and I still had stability issues
until det3.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
Of course, all mission critical synergistically enhanced corporate package
data
mining and report generating suites need upgrade paths to facilitate corporate
executive migrations. -- stolen from a /. post 4/26/99
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 02:15:50 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> I'm not sure that amazon would be in the top 100 sites, as measured by
> traffic. While Amazon does a lot of business, many other sites generate
> much more traffic than Amazon.
I'll bet their well up there in any traffic lists.. not to mention that their
income relies on the servers being up 24/7.
--
Mike Marion - Unix SysAdmin/Engineer, Qualcomm Inc. - http://www.miguelito.org
"640k memory is enough for anyone."
-- Bill Gates
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 02:22:57 GMT
"Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s1ef5$aja$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > So, when did the Microsoft leapord change its spots?
>
> I have to wonder what is so evil about displaying a non-fatal error
message
> based on an OS version.....
>
I guess you could ask what was so bad about leaving a horse's head in
someone's bed too. If you are a complete idiot...
As someone who was specifying office equipment at the time I took it
as a non-too-subtle warning from MS that they could and would break
things on a whim if you used another vendors DOS. And I still think
that is the correct interpretation - and it worked. Remember, this was
a time when virtually every MS product release broke some competitor's
product - a practice that seems to have lingered on all the way through
NT's SP6.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 21:53:02 -0500
Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8s31ai$2km$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:Iz6F5.122$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Even the rumors that MS might be engaging in this underhanded (and
> illegal)
> > activity served their purpose. Whether it was intentional or not, the
> > reasoning went, it's still better to stay away from DR DOS.
> >
> > It was a year later before it was finally proven that there had never
been
> > any errors or incompatibilities at all between DR DOS and Windows. By
> then,
> > though, their cute little FUD campaign had done all the damage it needed
> to
> > do. DRI was dead in the water, and Gates & Co were again free to charge
> as
> > much as the market would bear.
> >
> > And then, as now, Microsoft had apologists all over the place. So you
> would
> > have had lots of company back then, too.
>
> As you have lots of company now, Mr. FUDspinner.
>
> BTW; here's the official Microsoft line on it, from Dr. Dobb's Journal,
> Jan94, Letters.
>
> "
> Dear DDJ,
>
> The lawyers have finally given me the green light to describe why the
MS-DOS
> detection code discussed in the article "Examining the Windows AARD
> Detection Code" by Andrew Schulman (DDJ, September 1993) was in the
> Christmas beta. I hope you will keep an open mind, listen to the truth,
and
> accept it. It may not make such good press, but sometimes the truth is
like
> that.
>
> It has never been a practice of this company to deliberately create
> incompatibilities between Microsoft system software and the system
software
> of other OS publishers. I am not aware of any instance where Microsoft
> intentionally created an incompatibility between Windows and DR DOS.
>
On July 17, 1991, Jim Allchin proposed to Microsoft's 5 top executives that
"we . . . consider changing our apps to not run unless the OS is our OS."
On September 17, 1991, in a discussion about DR DOS' "compatibility
problems" with Windows, Allchin sent this to Silverberg (the author of the
lengthy letter you quoted):
"You should make sure it has problems in the future. ;-)"
Four hours later, Silverberg asked Phil Barrett what he was planning to do
in response to Allchin's suggestion:
----
Silverberg:
can you tell me specifically what we're going to do to bind ourselves closer
to ms dos? since you haven't been replying to my messages, I don't know how
to interpret your silence. Let me emphasize the importance; ibm is going to
announce the drdos deal at comdex (almost 100% certain).
OK?
Barrett:
Sorry for the silence -- dont interpret it as ignoring you.
The approach that ralph and I have discussed is to use a vxd to 'extend' dos
by patching it. In this case, we would create a subfunction in the
findfirst/findnext family-findabunch to allow filemanager to make a single
call to get directory information. We would not patch unknown OSs and, most
likely, would only patch MS DOS 5.x. The big advantage here is that it
provides a legitimate performance improvement. However, it wont prevent us
from running on foreign OSs (unless we explicitly decide to refuse to
run) -- they just wont run as fast.
Is this the approach you want to take? Or would you prefer a simple check
and refuse to run? Thats a lot easier but clearly quite defeatable. I'll
come and talk to you about it.
Silverberg:
let's talk.
----
On September 30, David Cole was discussing plans with Silverberg and
Barrett:
----
It's pretty clear we need to make sure Windows 3.1 only runs on top of MS
DOS or an OEM version of it. I checked with legal, and they are working up
some text we are suppose to display if someone tries to setup or run Windows
on a alien operating system. We are suppose to give the user the option of
continuing after the warning. However, we should surely crash at some point
shortly later.
Now to the point of this mail. How shall we proceed on the issue of making
sure Win 3.1 requires MS DOS. We need to have some pretty fancy internal
checks to make sure we are on the right one. Maybe there are several very
sophisticated checks so that competitors get put on a treadmill. Aaronr had
some pretty wild ideas after 3 or so beers, earleh has some too. We need to
make sure this doesn't distract the team for a couple of reasons 1) the pure
distraction factor 2) the less people know about exactly what gets done, the
better.
----
The "Aaronr" referred to is Aaron Reynolds. He's the guy that wrote the
phony error message code. He then obfuscated it, heavily encrypted it. He
also made it self-modifying, which meant that the only way to actually see
it was to execute it. And finally, he added some logic that would disable a
debugger attempting to step through it.
All this was done for the good of the public, of course.
> Microsoft does not test Windows on anything other than Microsoft's MS-DOS.
(Bald lie. They tested extensively on DR DOS to make sure that DR DOS
didn't give a "false positive" result to their detection code.)
> During the betas,
> we got a few bug reports about Windows not working correctly on some of
the
> MS-DOS imitations.
(Sometimes the arrogance of these Microsoft suits is just breathtaking.)
<snip of long corporate spin-tale, all of which is provably bullshit>
> Finally, the detection and concealment code and the nonfatal-error message
> code have been stripped out of the versions of Windows currently under
> development. That's the story. Surely not as interesting or controversial
as
> you or others would have people believe, but it's what really happened.
>
> Brad Silverberg, Vice President
>
> Microsoft Corp.
>
> Redmond, Washington"
>
Silverberg wrote this letter to Dr. Dobb's Journal in response to the two
whizzes who miraculously tracked down and exposed the Aard code. He wrote
it long before anyone knew that all those internal emails and memos would
one day be made public.
Almost every sentence Silverberg wrote is a lie, has been proven to be a lie
by his own emails and memos.
But somehow, you and your fellow cheerleaders manage to believe it.
I tell ya, the human brain is an amazing thing.
jwb
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: what defines a paradigm
Date: 12 Oct 2000 02:54:02 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>FM wrote:
>> Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Paradigms aren't delimited by features but by concerns.
>>
>> Not from a language's perspective. Your irrelevant
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>As opposed to the language designers' perspective?
>Or its users? This is quite revealing.
Or from a perspective of anyone who is discussing paradigms
with regards to a language. A language can only support a
paradigm. This is especially true for something like OO. It
is much less true for imperative programming and functional
programming.
>Apparently, the only thing that matters to you is the
>implementor's perspective and the brain-dead user's you
>like to defend for some unknown reason.
For some unknown reason, you keep misrepresenting my
position. If you had the impression that I'm more
concerned about the implementor's perspective or that
I've been defending the "brain-dead" user, you are simply
reading way beyond what your comprehension level allows.
Since you aren't able to logically refute my points or
offer any counter points for that matter, now you're
trying to attack your own imagination of my arguments, and
completely failing at that. It is rather clear that all
this is way over your head.
>> ramblings aside, a "paradigm" without features is
>> meaningless from the perspective of a language. A
>> language can only supply mechanisms with a model to
>> relate these mechanisms to its operative semantics.
>> It can't control how the mechanisms are used.
>> Therefore, it is only relevant to mark exactly
>> which mechanisms are necessary to support which
>> paradigm, though the basic conceptual model helps.
>> But that's exactly what the OO as a paradigm lacks.
>As a paradigm for WHOM? Language implementors? Maybe.
>But *somehow* the vision is crystal clear to their
>designers and their users.
Who said anything about vision? OO isn't based on, and
doesn't provide, a concrete enough computational model.
And those who do think OO provides some sort of mental
model of describing computational processes have a
terrible time agreeing on exactly what that is. Do you
have the same kind of problem for functional
programming? Imperative programming? In other words, a
language's OO-ness tells you little about the language's
semantics. In that sense, OO as a paradigm isn't
analogous to FP as a paradigm. The former is secondary
to a language's design, the latter, fundamental. The
disagreements on what exactly is OO can often be
attributed to treating this partial paradigm as though
it was a whole. Functional Paradigm is a full
computational model in itself. So is Imperative Paradigm.
OO, however, isn't.
>> know. It's you who seems completely unable to define OO
>> without nonsensical usage of other abstract terms you
>> don't understand. I already offered my own explanations
>> of what OO is, in several different ways. And you
>All of which amounted to "runtime polymorphism", cretin.
Which clearly demonstrates your inability to comprehend
what I wrote.
Again, you don't ever seem to be able to come up with your
own definition of OO and all you've been saying is no more
concrete than that it's something really really good that
good people intuitively understand and no one has ever
come close to truly realize.
>I'm not even bothering reading the rest. I don't need
>this shit. I'm going back to studiously ignoring you
>for the miserable knee-jerk cretin totally devoid of
>any semblance of imagination you are. I was a fool to
>ever stray from this policy.
In other words, you can't ever seem to refute a single
point I make, you will conveniently ignore all my points,
so that you don't have to concede the argument or display
your ignorance. Anyhow, being accused of lacking
imagination by someone who claims the existence of
absolute standards for beauty is an amusing experience.
Dan.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:15:09 -0700
From: joseph <[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!
Dolly wrote:
> Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> > Show me where it says that Intel ever sold AMD fabbed chips under the Intel
> > nameplate.
>
> Gladly... give me a day or two. If a scan isnt
> sufficient proof, I will gladly send you the whole
> board it is on... keep in mind, I originally
> said chips... I am not sure if I have any CPU's
> that old... but lotsa boards with AMD manu'd Intel
> chips.
This claim is credible. Intel wasn't always the "chipzilla" powerhouse - they were
once so weak IBM had to buy 20% of the company. Intel once licensed "chip" technology
to AMD to help Intel meet demand. That was the basis for the AMD clones of Intel CPUs.
if tehse were branded as Intel chips then the claim is correct.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:17:11 -0700
From: joseph <[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!
Drestin Black wrote:
>
> Linux admins get paid? Thought it was information for free for everyone!!
Work is not free.
Linux admins get paid and they are being produced by all the major
Universities.
------------------------------
From: "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 22:15:48 -0500
Ermine Todd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:#wgpor9MAHA.345@cpmsnbbsa09...
> Why don't you post one of those "undocumented and secret" api's that MS
> supposedly uses to make Office run better ...
>
> Shouldn't be hard ... just get SPY and run it. Maybe you could also use
> Depends and see what external links are used.
>
> Nah, never happen. If you actually did any real programming you would
know
> that the rumors of the secret api's are just that.
>
> --ET--
>
As it turns out, I'm not the one who said they used "undocumented and
secret" APIs.
As it also turns out, there are many, many undocumented functions in almost
all of their APIs. Do their products use these undocumented functions?
Yes, they do. You can bet your ass that their competitors don't, though.
Not the smart ones, anyway. Microsoft simply gets rid of that ol'
"undocumented function" in the next release and thereby breaks their
competitors product. They've been doing that since their DOS days.
So you want me to name some? And what would you do with this information?
Admit that you're wrong? Of course not. You'll just go on and on, asking
for this or that, changing focus, denying, until I get bored with it and
stop replying, at which point you'll claim victory.
Why should I bother?
jwb
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:22:04 -0700
From: joseph <[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!
Drestin Black wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> You are the fool and idiot. You cannot prove anything whatsoever. Prove
> their attempt to migrate at any time. Prove their attempt to migrate and
> failure at any time. W2K obviously can handle the load because the same
> number of servers that ran hotmail under BSD are now running a larger load
> under W2K (same hardware, better results). And, look for Slowaris to be
> replaced at hotmail before years end...
>
> I can prove that BSD was replaced by W2K successfully at Hotmail - what can
> you prove other than your often repeated .sig (and I quote):
Oh Please. You could NOT prove what you claim. If you could you wouldn't be
doing it on USENET.
And What about realiability? MS advocates always pretend Windows is as
relaible as say an OS like BSD.
------------------------------
From: "JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 23:30:34 -0400
"Walter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Edwin wrote:
> >
> > Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:39cad71c$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > On 09/21/2000 at 05:52 PM,
> > > Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > >
> > > > The point is that Apple is widely associated with a lifestyle and
> > > > mindset. Packard Bell is not.
> > >
> > > Just for grins and giggles, I had one of our high school computer
teachers
> > > ask 11th graders what they though of when they heard the word,
"Apple".
> > > Only 6 of 87 said computers.
> >
> > Those six were promptly beaten up by their other 81 classmates. ;)
>
> How many people would associate "sun" with computers? Yet, Sun
> Microsystems is one of the most successful computer companies in the
> world with hightst (I think still has) share of the Unix market.
I asked my 112 year old grandpa what he thought of Sun and he responded "Oh
you must mean Sun, one of the most successfull computer companies on earth.
I then said "What about Apple?" He said "whaa".
------------------------------
From: John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:43:13 -0700
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:33:23 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Notepad doesn't seem to do graphical printing. I think it just dumps text
>out to the printer (though I could be wrong).
>
>In any event, we're talking about decent programmers here. Not novices.
>
Oh, right. Novices always trim their estimates to the bare minimum it
will take them That way when they're sick a day, the project can be
late. ROTFLMAO.
John
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Paul Colquhoun)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Migration --> NT costing please :-)
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 03:51:11 GMT
On Thu, 12 Oct 2000 01:52:47 +0100, John Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|
<75 lines snipped>
|
|His real name is gormless fuck-wit - would you own up to a name like that ?
|
<58 lines snipped>
133 lines of quoted text for 1 additional line of comment.
*PLEASE* trim the post you are replying to. At a minimum, it will make
your own pearls of wisdom so much easier to find.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Universal Life Church http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
xenaphobia: The fear of being beaten to a pulp by
a leather-clad, New Zealand woman.
------------------------------
From: John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2000 20:53:48 -0700
On Wed, 11 Oct 2000 13:55:53 -0300, Roberto Alsina
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>El mié, 11 oct 2000, Simon Cooke escribió:
>>"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:vSPE5.133$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> "Peter da Silva" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:8rtf3u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> > John Lockwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> > > 3) Notepad is a trivial windows application. (Defined as an
>>> > > application a good Windows programmer could complete in a week or
>>> > > two).
>
>[snip about how two weeks is way overkill]
>
Snip indeed. "From a week or two" to "two weeks", and complain that
the second is way overkill. Of course most of the people who've
written here to say they could do it faster assumed they wouldn't have
to write the help system, or they assumed Delphi, or they assumed a
canopener.
What is amusing in a sort of "why the fuck am I still here" sort of
way is watching the lot of you making my point for me that it's
trivial while at the same time making me feel bad about it.
Socializing here is right up there with sticking needles in one's
eyes. I suppose you could do a better job at that, too. Bully for
you.
------------------------------
From: Timberwoof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2000 03:56:41 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Walter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Edwin wrote:
> > >
> > > Bob Germer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:39cad71c$1$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > On 09/21/2000 at 05:52 PM,
> > > > Peter Ammon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > >
> > > > > The point is that Apple is widely associated with a lifestyle
> > > > > and mindset. Packard Bell is not.
> > > >
> > > > Just for grins and giggles, I had one of our high school
> > > > computer teachers ask 11th graders what they though of when
> > > > they heard the word, "Apple". Only 6 of 87 said computers.
> > >
> > > Those six were promptly beaten up by their other 81 classmates.
> > > ;)
> >
> > How many people would associate "sun" with computers? Yet, Sun
> > Microsystems is one of the most successful computer companies in
> > the world with hightst (I think still has) share of the Unix
> > market.
>
> I asked my 112 year old grandpa what he thought of Sun and he
> responded "Oh you must mean Sun, one of the most successfull
> computer companies on earth. I then said "What about Apple?" He said
> "whaa".
That sounds preposterous. Do you have a reference to back up that claim?
}: )
--
Timberwoof <timberwoof at infernosoft dot com> Chief Perpetrator
Infernosoft: Putting the No in Innovation. http://www.infernosoft.com
"The opposite of hardware is not easyware."
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
