Linux-Advocacy Digest #698, Volume #29 Tue, 17 Oct 00 03:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: What I would like to see in an OS: (sfcybear)
Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web! ("Lance Togar")
Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux? (John Hasler)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Astroturfing (Perry Pip)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop (Perry Pip)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (Mike Byrns)
Re: End-User Alternative to Windows ("David Fulton")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: sfcybear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What I would like to see in an OS:
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 04:09:39 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Gardiner Family <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I am no win advocate or Linux advocate, however, if I were to design
an
> OS these are some of the features:
>
> 1. Linux Kernel
> 2. Standardised GUI, either, MacOS or Windows like interface
WHy? do you really think that One GUI fits everyones needs??? I think
not. I like having a choice. If i wanted to one size fits all I would go
with MS or pantyhose nither of which I want
> 3. Simplified Library structure similar to what Amiga had (ie,
> icons.library, fonts.library, printers.library)
> 4. ReiserFS as the file system
> 5. A windows interpreter, when a program makes a call it goes through
a
> filter (like wine) and matchs the windows dll call with the UNIX
> equivilant.
What for? I would rather have Native linux apps
>
> Both Windows and Linux have great attributes, Linux, opensourced and
> very stable. Windows, easy to use and administrate. By combining the
> power of a UNIX core and the simplicity of the Windows GUI there would
> be a balance between simplicity, functionality and flexibility. (a
> concept very similar to the MacOS X project).
>
> feel free to reply, no flaming please.
>
> matt
>
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: "Lance Togar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft kicked off the Web!
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:27:47 -0400
"Josiah Fizer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Nick Condon wrote:
>
> > Otto wrote:
> >
> > > The industry started out with Unix and along came NT beating the crap
out of
> > > the "xNIX". When the 64-bit version of NT becomes available sometimes
in the
> > > next year, it'll be lights out for the "xNIX". All of the "real
> > > professionals" will be flipping burgers somewhere and they can keep
> > > wondering about what hit them.
> > >
> > > Otto
> >
> > Oh no! Unix is going to die! Nobody has ever said that about Unix
before, oh
> > wait a minute yes they have: every 6 months since about 1972.
>
> And I could have sworn this Sun Sparc Ultra system and this SGI on my desk
where
> allready 64bit.
..
Well, when you ain't got nothing better to talk about, that compiler switch
can make some good press.
..
..
------------------------------
From: John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: Is there a MS Word (or substitute) for Linux?
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 03:51:56 GMT
Jerry L Kreps writes:
> I wish this real name policy was universal!
How do you propose to authenticate those "real names"?
--
John Hasler
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, Wisconsin
------------------------------
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: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 05:17:48 GMT
"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Not to mention that MS got their foot
> into the business by offering the lowest price on an OS. The few other OS
> companies all decided the best route would be gouging. MS offered a very
low
> cost OS, they won due to competitor stupidity. Get over it.
Perhaps you slept through the lengthy court process that disclosed the
truth,
which differs from your account...
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 05:52:11 GMT
Dave Terry wrote:
> Mike Byrns wrote:
>
> > So they don't read the front page or watch the news? They all know they can buy
> > a Mac or get Linux for their PCs. There just not interested because Windows
> > satisfies them. Reference the Gallup poll.
>
> When Joe Blow walks into Best Buy to buy his first computer and sees 20 Windows
> machines set up to choose from, what do you think he's gonna go home with? Average
> home computer users don't read the front page or watch the news to learn anything
> about computers or the computer industry - they could absolutely care less.
You're right that most could not care less. You're wrong when it comes to reading the
paper. Quite a few folks have followed the Microsoft trial in the media according to
Gallup and that means they get their their tech news from the paper or conventional
media. They could care less about McNealy, Ellison and Case. Really. And that's why
I think they still support Microsoft. Base Americans love winners. No matter what
they do to win. They think Microsoft is cool beans man. After all only about half of
as are what I'd consider "educated". The other half watch pro wrestling and NASCAR.
Anything to win (yeah I know it's just a show).
I understand capitalism and how it's a dog eat dog world. Microsoft it just pushing
the envelope like I've paid them to do for me. In exchange they increase my net
worth so I can retire early and afford to do what "I" want.
I want to teach computers, math and physics to elementary school children. I cannot
afford to do so and meet my other financial agendas like putting my kids through the
best schools, making life comfortable for my wife, and allowing myself to get the best
hardware and software for my own interests. For me, the $90 I spent upgrading was
better spent than any other component of my system. It was the best choice because of
the compatibility and reliability and familiarity. Linux hasn't cut it after all the
(15+) downloads I've tried. It just does not enable me like Windows 2000. I have to
coddle the OS to do things basic to me in Windows 2000.
> All
> they want is something that lets them email and surf like their friends and
> relatives do. The few that have even *heard* of Linux at all have no idea what it
> actually is.
So put it in front of them. They will go back to Windows. Joe Sixpack could care less
about Apache.
> > > The truth is that the average user at home thinks of Windows as part of the
> > > machine.
I've heard this before. I've asked for proof. None was forthcoming. Links please?
No slashdot or ilk.
> >
> > Wrong. They read the papers.
>
> No, you are wrong. I am constantly dealing with friends and relatives who complain
> about their "crappy Compaq" or "crappy HP" when, in fact, there is nothing wrong at
> all with their hardware - it's the OS that is a disaster and crashing all the time.
> They TOTALLY equate Windows with the hardware - it's all "the computer" to them!
Get those folks Windows 2000. I consider Windows 9x to be only slightly better than
MacOS. If they want stability offer 2000. But I doubt you will. You'll lead them to
confusion with Linux.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 06:10:50 GMT
Darin Johnson wrote:
> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > In fact, Gallup has shown that most Americans are against the DoJ
> > position by an overwhelming majority. Reference:
>
> Well, if US law was based on majority rule, you might have a point.
It is. This is a democracy. Read the Constitution.
> But it's not, and the constitution and laws of the US work to protect
> the minority from the tyranny of the majority.
Really? I thought it's aim was to represent the majority through representation.
As I see it the polls show that the Attorneys General and the states are
constitutionally invalid. Have those Attorneys General taken a vote in their
constituancy to discover if their action is warranted? I think not. The
appellate court will rule so and the Supreme count will too. This is not a matter
of nation significance -- the Supreme Court has ruled. I think it's a matter of
McNealy, Ellison, Case and Jobs "signifacance", not the American electorate.
> > They made that
> > choice at home. Forcing folks to use a Mac or Linux at work would hurt
> > productivity and be less cost effective because of the learning curve and in
> > most cases the lack of mature applications support.
>
> Forcing a UNIX developer to use Windows would hurt productivity, yet
> I've seen it happen (ie, they use X Server on top of Windows to get to
> the dwindling supply of UNIX workstations).
Cool. Developers are service providers, not folks that should mandate policy.
> I've seen computer
> support services refuse to connect non Windows machines to a network,
> even though one or more groups may be doing their work on other types
> of machines.
That's great too! Folks that can't do their jobs on the corporate standard ought
to be unhappy. Maybe they can find a Linux house?
> And I've seen a someone dictate to a technical
> documentation team that they must use Word for the 300+ page manuals,
> but the writers revolted and eventually got their way (and went on
> using more mature applications than Word).
Like a Mac? OK. I'll give them that. They are "creative". A niche. Don't
expect support.
> People shouldn't necessarily be "forced" to use anything.
I weep.
> Few people
> are ever forced to use UNIX or Macs;
Post a link.
> but many are forced to use
> Windows. Not always explicitly forced, but pressure may become
> stronger and stronger over time to use something else - mail servers
> get switched from open standards to MS Outlook,
Outlook supports open standards.
> firewalls get changed
> to require a Windows program to get through them,
Please show a firewall std that requires Windows.
> computer support
> people that know something other than Windows start vanishing (to be
> replaced by people that amazingly don't even know much about Windows).
They are going to the Linux shops and getting laid off.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 06:19:34 GMT
JS/PL wrote:
> "Weevil" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:D8sG5.41960$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > JS/PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> > > > [...]
> > > > >There was never a requirement to sign a per processor license
> > agreement.
> > > Get
> > > > >your facts straight. [...]
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you misread the facts presented, which was that there was a
> > > > requirement to agree to ppl, or MS would make Win/DOS too expensive
> for
> > > > the OEM to remain competitive for those large number of customers that
> > > > currently use Windows (not realizing how crappy a system it is, and
> > > > believing MS's hype-machine/marketing).
> > >
> > > Name the price difference and I'll explain to you the significance of
> your
> > > ignorance.
> > > Ohh...whats that? You don't have a clue what the prices were, let alone
> > the
> > > differences?
> >
> > "Opus agreement has finally been signed by Redmond. Another DRI prospect
> > bites the dust with a per processor DOS agreement."
> > -- Microsoft OEM Status Report, October 1990
> >
> > Just to set the tone, JS. There has never been any question as to what
> the
> > per processor agreements were all about. It was to destroy competition.
> >
> > As for prices...
> >
> > In a contract Microsoft got Commodore Business Machines to sign in 1990,
> the
> > price structure for a per processor license was as follows:
> >
> > 8086 - $6
> > 80286 - $10
> > 80386 - $16
> > 80486 - $16
> >
> > This came out to a weighted average of $8.22. At the time, Commodore was
> > paying $11, so this was a nice break for them. However, Microsoft then
> > informed them that without the per processor agreement, they would be
> > charged a flat $30 per copy, regardless of processor.
> >
> > Naturally, Commodore signed.
>
> $30.00 on a $2500.00 PC isn't exactly what I'd call a make or break amount.
> If what you say is true a $19.00 hike in what they were paying wouldn't be a
> burden of any consequence (8/10ths of a percent of the cost of a typical
> system).
>
> >
> > This scenario was repeated over and over with the large OEMs of the time.
> > It's all there in publically available court documents. A lot of it is
> > online.
>
> > > If there ever were a "requirement" to purchase the per processor
> license,
> > > wouldn't MS have been selling it to ALL (100%) OEM's instead of 0-40%
> over
> > a
> > > three year period?
> >
> > The didn't target the little guys back then. It wasn't worth it. They
> went
> > after the big accounts, and most especially the big accounts that had
> begun
> > selling DR DOS systems.
> >
> > > Proof shall set you free, liar.
> > >
> >
> > How do you find the energy to go on in the face of all this evidence? I
> > hope someone is paying you well.
> >
> > On the other hand, your behavior tends to paint Windows advocates with an
> > ugly brush, so you're actually doing a tiny amount of harm to Microsoft in
> > terms of PR.
>
> <paste>
>
> Microsoft began offering per processor licenses at some point in the late
> 1980s at the request of OEMs who wanted to simplify the administration of
> their per system licenses. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at 96-97; Hosogi
> Dep. (Exh. 8) at 27-28; Lum Dep. (Exh. 6) at 82; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at
> 103-07.) Because OEMs generally change microprocessors much less frequently
> than they change other components of their systems, a per processor license
> decreased the number of contract amendments that had been necessary under a
> per system license due to system changes. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at
> 96-97; Hosogi Dep. (Exh. 8) at 27-28; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 103-06.)
> Another reason that Microsoft offered per processor licenses was to reduce
> piracy. (Gates 10/27/97 Dep. (Exh. 2) at 46-48; Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 175.)
> Per processor licenses reduced piracy at the OEM level by allowing Microsoft
> to monitor the number of computers shipped by the OEM rather than monitoring
> the various system designations created by the OEM. (See Gates 10/27/97 Dep.
> (Exh. 2) at 50-51.) Per processor licenses further reduced piracy at the
> end-user level by discouraging the shipment of "naked" machines, which
> encouraged the installation of a counterfeit operating system. (See Gates
> 10/27/97 Dep. (Exh. 2) at 46-50; Hosogi Dep. (Exh. 8) at 33-35.)
> Although per processor licenses generally obligated the OEM to pay a royalty
> on every machine shipped containing a particular processor, Microsoft
> negotiated exceptions with at least twenty-seven OEMs to allow those OEMs to
> ship up to ten percent of their machines containing particular processor
> types without paying royalties on those machines. (See Kempin FTC Testimony
> (Exh. 9) at 104-05; Lum Dep. (Exh. 6) at 92; Apple Dep. (Exh. 10) at 23-24;
> Microsoft's Second Response to Department of Justice Civil Investigative
> Demand No. 10300 (excerpts attached as Exh. 21) at C001309-11.) Other OEMs
> with no such exception in their per processor licenses nonetheless offered
> non-Microsoft operating systems with their computers during the term of
> their per processor licenses. (See, e.g., Fade Dep. (Exh. 7) at 111-13;
> Roberts DOJ Decl. (Exh. 11) at C005864; Lieven Dep. (Exh. 12) at 187.)
> OEMs could avoid whatever "restriction" was purportedly inherent in a per
> processor license simply by opting for a per system license and designating
> a unique model for machines to be shipped with an operating system other
> than MS-DOS. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at 94-95, 212-13.) Moreover,
> OEMs could license competing operating systems for new models or processor
> lines as the OEM introduced them. (Kempin FTC Testimony (Exh. 9) at 81,
> 85-87.)
> The relatively minor suggested price differentials in Microsoft's internal
> price guidelines between per system and per processor licenses varied over
> time. [REDACTED]
>
> </paste>
> >
> > If you really are one of the handful of people Microsoft pays to
> anonymously
> > advocate for them, I expect you'll be getting a pink slip pretty soon.
>
> Think about it. It's much more likely that MS competitors pay people to post
> anti-ms FUD on usenet. Do you get paid per post?
I don't. But it's posts like Weevil's and Devlins's that make me post. If
they'd shut up I would too. I wouldn't mind being paid for what I do here
because it's honest work. Linux folks lie about Windows and Mac folks lie about
Windows every day. We tell the truth. Keep it up man! I will try to.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 06:33:56 GMT
Weevil wrote:
> James A. Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Weevil wrote:
> > >
> > > Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > http://www.gallup.com/poll/indicators/indMicrosoft.asp
> > > >
> > > > Also see the related analysis links at the bottom of that page.
> > > >
> > > > That being read, it seems that the boss is winning points for giving
> > > people
> > > > their choice of operating systems at work. As it should be. They
> made
> > > that
> > > > choice at home.
> > >
> > > People use whatever comes on their computer. They don't "choose" one
> > > operating system over another, especially when they're not even aware of
> a
> > > choice.
> >
> > Sure they do. I know I made such an explicit choice back in the late
> > 80's when I decided to replace my Apple IIe. I initially wanted to buy
> > a Mac, as I was predisposed to stay with Apple. However, after looking
> > at prices (in the neighborhood of $3K for the feature set I wanted in a
> > pc, as opposed to $5K for what I wanted in a Mac), I decided to tolerate
> > DOS even though I would rather have used MacOS.
>
> I bought an Amiga in 1985. That was in the days when Microsoft advocates,
> stuck as they were with DOS 3.3 or some such, scoffed at the touchy-feely
> GUI of Amigas, Macs, and Atari STs. No real productivity could ever be
> achieved with those mouse things, they said. And who needed multitasking?
> Why would anybody ever need to run more than one program at a time, for
> god's sakes? And of course, 640k ram was enough for anybody.
These groups weren't around then. Where did you see verifiable data on this
that you can post? Andecdotal.
> You're right -- I did have a choice back then, sort of. But still, 90% of
> the software was written for DOS, in spite of its vast inferiority. I chose
> then to go with a better system (at home), even though I knew software would
> be hard to come by. My Amiga was stolen 3 years later. I still miss it.
I miss mine too. Too bad it died over 10 years ago. I got a 386 after that and
never looked back. Why? Windows 3.0 was better in many ways than Amiga or Mac
of the time. Then Windows 95 came out and you all stuffed hat. Then you
started bellyaching about how Windows ripped you off. Sad.
> > There was a very clear choice to be made then - Apple was getting very
> > good press, but had explicitly chosen to go for margin over volume. Had
> > they gone the other way, things might well be very different now.
>
> Yup. Apple miscalculated badly.
They do to this day. Not exactly the Wall Street darling anymore.
> > > Microsoft has for years required PC manufacturer to pay for DOS and
> > > Windows on every PC they sell, whether they include Win/DOS on the
> computer
> > > or not. It's that so-called "per-processor license" you've heard tell
> of.
> > > How did they require OEMs to do this? By refusing to allow them to sell
> > > Win/DOS at all unless they signed the contract. Now, OEMs are in a
> highly
> > > competitive market. They can't afford to charge their customers twice
> for
> > > an OS (once for Microsoft's per processor license and once for, say,
> OS/2),
> > > because their competitor across town will just undercut their prices by
> > > selling MS-only machines. So...the result is exactly what you'd expect:
> > > home users have been locked in to Win/DOS for years. They didn't "make
> that
> > > choice at home," as you claim.
> >
> > Would MS have been able to do this if Apple had tried to make the space
> > competitive in the late 80's? I really doubt it. But Apple misplayed
> > their hand badly.
>
> Yeah, they did. But the deck was stacked against them since Microsoft had
> the IBM market sewn up. As the saying went, "Nobody ever got fired for
> buying an IBM." DOS was obviously a pitiful alternative to Mac, Amiga, and
> even Atari ST operating systems, but DOS ran on IBM systems. The others
> didn't.
Do you remember that DR's GEM was killed by Apple in court? (The GUI on the ST)
How about how the ST killed the Mac in performance? How about how C'dore killed
themselves?
> > > The truth is that the average user at home thinks of Windows as part of
> the
> > > machine. Everybody he knows uses Windows It was on there when he
> unpacked
> > > it and plugged it in. He thinks it's part of it. It wasn't a "choice"
> he
> > > made -- it was just there, like the carburetor on his car.
> > >
> >
> > Now, perhaps. But this is a consequence of Apple's stupidity in the
> > years 1985-1990, and MS's marketing intelligence filling the breach.
>
> And now we're getting into opinion. Quite a few people believe that
> Microsoft fell into their good fortune by being at the right place at the
> right time. In the early days, IBM is what captured the market for
> Microsoft, not DOS.
>
> What happened after that is what has been thrashed around the court system
> for so many years. Microsoft has parted with hundreds of millions, maybe
> billions of dollars in fines and out of court settlements for their actions.
Post the link troll.
> But their payoff so overwhelms their penalties that the courts are wasting
> their time in levying any penalty short of a breakup. Fines are useless.
Only annoying. Breakup hope is gone. Read the papers.
> Jail time for Bill, Steve, and a few others might help some. :)
Whoa! This is a civil matter. Show a precedent for civil jail time in an
anti-trust case :-)
> > > > Just face it folks.
> > > > Windows is where it's at today because it's better at what people want
> to
> > > do
> > > > with their computers.
> > >
> > > Well, no, it's not. It's where it's at today because Microsoft forces
> it on
> > > people.
How?
> > No, because MS did a far, far better job at market penetration in the
> > early days when it mattered. Now they just have to sit back and enjoy
> > it.
> >
>
> They penetrated the market, all right. *Boy* did they penetrate the market.
> Not to mention their competitors and consumers.
Microsoft is a great company that does things right for investors like me.
You failed to see it I guess.
I'm sorry.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Astroturfing
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 06:26:12 GMT
On 16 Oct 2000 16:35:11 -0500,
Drestin Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8sd7b3$1vd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <39e7dbae$0$42822$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > > Conversely, I've never met a 3rd year computer engineering student
>> who had
>> > > a hope in the world of making more money than a 17 year old sysadmin
>> in
>> > boston.
>> >
>> > amazingly, I concur with abracadabra on this one.
>> >
>>
>> In your wet dreams, Dristan.
>>
>
>wow - truth hurts? Dristan - that was almost funny...
>
Like we've never seen this before. A drop out attempting to diminish
the value of a good education because he couldn't make the grade
himself. No different from the fact he attempts to diminish Unix
because he can't handle actually learning it.
Why don't you provide some data to back up your claim, Alex. Show me
some stats to show the average MCSE with no college education at all
makes more than the average Purdue Engineering graduate. For that
matter, simply show the average MSCE makes more than the average EE.
The only reason MSCE's have any decent salary data at all is because
many of them actually do have college degrees.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 06:27:07 GMT
On Mon, 16 Oct 2000 13:07:01 -0500,
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >I see you conveniently forgot that we're talking about Solaris 7 and
>> >below.
>> >>
>> >> That's a crock of lame ass bullshit. Here is what you posted:
>> >>
>> >> http://x65.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=677223329
>> >
>> >Here was my clarification (which you responded to, btw)
>> >
>> >http://x55.deja.com/threadmsg_ct.xp?AN=677303057.1
>>
>> Irrelevent. It's nothing but an attempt on your part to shift the
>> emphasis to an older version to hide that you were wrong. The pricing
>> of older versions is irrelevent.
>
>Not irrelevlant, you claimed that Solaris 7 was also cost of media for a
>commercial license.
Bullshit you liar. I said I bought Solaris 7 for $10. I never said
anything about a commercial licence for Solaris 7. But it's TOTALLY
IRRELEVENT!!!! The *current* version of Solaris is $75 for commercial
use for an UNLIMITED # OF MACHINES!!!! Therefore Solaris is cheaper
than W2K. Be a man and admit you were wrong. By continuing to deny it
you just prove how dimwitted you are.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 06:46:47 GMT
Peter da Silva wrote:
> In article <vSPE5.133$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Actually, Notepad is an app that should only take any decent developer a few
> > hours to write.
>
> I should hope so. You could write a Notepad clone in Tcl, sans printing, in a
> few minutes. The idea that it'd take a couple of weeks boggles me, as does the
> fact that Microsoft hasn't replaced it with a 32-bit application.
I'm sorry you are so misinformed. Notepad has been 32-bit since 1993 with
NT3.5. Just another example of the "FUD" -- he he, that the Linux faithful try to
push on readers. Just remember, folks, that Linux is not even close to what the
"faithful" try to make it seem. So sad.
------------------------------
From: "David Fulton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: End-User Alternative to Windows
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2000 00:36:46 -0600
I stand corrected then "many people" as opposed to some.
Btw, the other ATM stands for Asynchronous Transfer Mode and is a networking
technology that allows for differing types of transmissions. There are some
educational institutions that use it for phone, video, and Internet, all on
one line.
"Tom Emerson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7cyF5.160$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> David Fulton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:GlgF5.2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > HMMM...
> >
> [...]
> >
> > I think you need to seperate out the fact that OS/2 was taken over by
IBM
> > and is still used by some people today (quite religiously too, although
I
> am
> > not one that uses it.)
>
> Don't be too sure of your self on this one -- many people use OS/2 without
> even realizing it -- most, if not all, ATM's are running OS/2 In fact, I
> remember reading a trade magazine almost 5 years ago where they pointed
out
> the latest ATM was running OS/2 2.1 "out of the box" ...
>
> [ATM here means Automated Teller, not that fancy high-speed message
transfer
> system... ]
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
