Linux-Advocacy Digest #413, Volume #30 Sat, 25 Nov 00 14:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: The Sixth Sense ("PLZI")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad Mulligan")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux? (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! (mark)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... (mark)
Re: The Sixth Sense (mark)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (mark)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Donovan Rebbechi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "PLZI" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:32:39 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said PLZI in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 00:25:22 GMT;
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said PLZI in alt.destroy.microsoft;
> >> [...]
> >> >Can you guess by now, why I like the WSH, ASP and all those little
other
> >> >three-letter acronymes that come with Windows platform?
> >>
> >> Because they're the only way you understand how to do things, and are
> >> not concerned with how crappy the OS is, otherwise? Just a guess.
> >
> >Nope. I (still, I hope) can do things via JES2/JES3, FOCUS and plain
vanilla
> >MVS console. [...]
>
> I didn't say it was the only way you knew to do things; merely the only
> way to understand them. Or should I have said to explain them, which is
> what I meant; you see the current state of computing technology through
> Windows colored glasses, regardless of your background and experience.
As where as you see it through anti-ms-glasses, which is not the same thing
as without any glasses at all.
> >Of course, you could go through my list, and give some real-world examples
> >how to do things on *nix systems, instead of whining in two sentences?
Start
> >for example from moving the user data from Netware to your favourite *nix?
> >With the tools provided on the platform? And for credibility, give one or
two
> >other examples as well? Say, file search/indexing, using those as well as
in
> >web server and office software of your choice, and multiplatform database
> >server support? List the tools needed. Show me a better way, and I will
> >listen.
>
> You are supposedly quite smart; how come you haven't figured out that
> there isn't any industry standard middleware, which would provide all
> the kinds of functionality you describe,
I'm not talking about middleware, just describing the things that the current
microcomputer platform of my choice enables me to do. The functionality is
not imaginary - it exists. Still I'm waiting any description of similar
functionality in any other platform.
> because there is an illegal
> monopoly, which you trumpet as the "solution",
I did not take any standing about the MS being monopoly, illegal or not - I
simply do not care. I leave the suing of companies and people to the US of A.
I'm simply talking the technical merits of the platform. This always seems to
be the last line fo defense - when nobody comes up with the answers,
everybody always defaults to "but ms is the evil empire!" - line in the end.
Sad.
- PLZI
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:41:25 GMT
"Chris Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8v7jl9$6tl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8v6e81$bju$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:CXwR5.370$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > Organization: Self Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > Followup-To:
> >> >
> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, The
> >> > Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >> > >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Joseph T. Adams
> >> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > > wrote
> >> > >on 17 Nov 2000 00:52:50 GMT
> >> > ><8v1vh2$7sc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> > >>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> > >>wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>: Oh, yes.
> >> > >>: If Whistler is as good from 2K as 2K is from NT & 98, then
> > Linux\Unix has
> >> a
> >> > >>: reason to be *really* afraid, and by the release of the system
> > *after*
> >> > >>: whistler, I wouldn't be surprise if those a minority even on the
> > server.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >>Even if Microsoft released a version of 'Blows that didn't blow, I
> >> > >>still wouldn't use it, because:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> (a) I don't willingly support criminal organizations, with my
> >> > >> money
> >> > >> or by any other means.
> >> > >
> >> > >I'm not sure this has been proven either way yet, although the
> >> > >findings of fact were interesting.
> >> > >
> >> >
> >> > #1. The Microsoft trial is OVER. They have been found guilty.
> >>
> >> By a judge of questionable motives and mind. He himself has claimed
> >> that he'll be overturned, admitting his poor judgement.
> >>
> >> Just because a judge says you're quilty, doesn't necessarily mean
> >> you're quilty.
> >
> > Um, didn't you mean to say guilty instead of quilty here? And I've to
> > object to the last statement. If a judge rules that you are guilty, then
> > you *are* guilty, that is what the word means. At least, that is what
> > the word means in court. Whatever you actually did what you are accused
> > is a whole different matter, of course.
>
> Even if Mcrosoft gets off in the US court, the EC is going to fry
> them.....
Wooo. There goes 1/100th of the world market.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:42:53 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> (e) Microsoft has less than no credibility in the server world,
> >>>> while UNIX and Linux have proven themselves admirably.
> >>>
> >>>I wouldn't say that; IIS is in fact used in a number of places.
> >>>However, it's far from clear that IIS is as powerful as
> >>>Apache, although it may depend on the application.
> >>
> >>
>
>
> A few words about IIS.
>
> {http://../../../../command.com}
>
The page you are looking for is currently unavailable. The Web site might be
experiencing technical difficulties, or you may need to adjust your browser
settings.
> Hope this helps!
>
Hope this helps.
>
> Charlie
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 19:37:05 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8vmmm0$53o3k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <8vlnrb$4tvic$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
wrote:
> >> >
> >> >"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:w_rT5.14$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> >Talking about the registery.
> >> >
> >> >>. I think MS could have done
> >> >> a far better job by taking the dedicated partition approach. It'd be
a
> >lot
> >> >> safer kept from the OS's file system.
> >> >
> >> >You are probably correct, the problem is that it's *much* more
convenient
> >> >and easier to handle files than partitions.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Convenient for whom?
> >
> >Practically everybody.
> >Tools to handle files are easier to write than for partitions.
> >And it's easier to do backup from/to files.
> >
>
> Are you perhaps missing the key point here, that you store files
> on partitions?
So?
What are you trying to say?
That you store the files in partitions?
But you don't *hadnle* partitions yourself, most of the time.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:41:03 +0000
In article <vrST5.5567$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <J4cT5.5264$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>> >
>> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> Try publishing an "unhappy Microsoft experience" on company letter
>> >> head, and watch how quickly Microsoft has your company in court
>> >> for violating the EULA, which specifically states that the corporation
>> >> MAY NOT publish *anything* disparaging about Microsoft's products...
>> >> EVEN IF IT'S TRUE.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Not true, I published a letter to the editor of PC week some 6 years ago
>> >with a minor complaint about Microsoft and received a call from MS asking
>> >what they could do to fix the problem, I told them and it was done, both
>> >retroactive and made policy in their next release.
>>
>> I thought that the EULA was not enforcable 6 years ago, but might
>> be now? Related to UCITA or DMCA or something?
>>
>> Would be interesting to see what happened now.
>>
>
>Most likely the same, MS saw this as a PR/Marketing problem and did what
>they do best, give the customer's what they want.
>
>
Chuckle. I'm still waiting for any of the things I want. Still,
I'll assume you were joking here.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: I have had it up to *here* with Linux
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:38:08 +0000
In article <SoST5.19985$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Jan Schaumann wrote:
>* "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> jason wrote:
>>>
>>> Must you quote the whole damn post?
>>
>> It is required.
>
>It is not. Just quote what you reply to, snipp *all* unneccessary stuff.
>http://www.netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html
>
>
Ah, this is probably the most unique of all of the sub-plots in
this ng.
Aaron wears his sig as others wear their ties, badges, colours or
whatever. Or perhaps venerate their national flag. Those kinds
of things.
I personally suspect that Aaron will trim his posts ever so slightly
just before hell freezes over. Or maybe just after.
:)
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 17:42:12 +0000
In article <8qST5.5564$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike Byrns wrote:
>> >mark wrote:
>> >
>> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >> >> Netmeeting phones home as well. It's kind of unsurprising that
>Windows is
>> >> >> so insecure - it needs to be in order to enable all these bits of
>soft-
>> >> >> ware to phone back to Microsoft Headquarters so they can see what
>you're
>> >> >> doing, or where you are, or who you are, or, well, what, exactly?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Incidentally, last time I mentioned this someone responded very fast
>to
>> >> >> say that you could disable this behaviour, but I've not been able to
>> >> >> see how. Maybe I need that MCSE :)
>> >> >
>> >> >And in today's MCSE lesson... how to make the fucking thing work the
>way
>> >> >you want.
>> >> >
>> >> >Tomorrow: How to stop your computers reporting your hard drive
>> >> >contents and bank details to Microsoft.
>> >>
>> >> :-)
>> >
>> >What I think would be really amusing is to prove where the operating
>system sends
>> >banking information to Microsoft. Netmeeting sends your conversation
>through
>> >Microsoft servers only if you configure it to. Just like AIM and ICQ et.
>al. If
>> >you use your own server then, of course, it does not. The where an who
>you are
>>
>> Er, no - that's wrong. The copy of netmeeting I'm looking at sets up
>> tcp links to microsoft even though the server is within our intranet.
>>
>
>During setup it asks you if you want to use ils.microsoft.com as a directory
>(read name) server. Say no and no connection to MS exists. This is also a
>setting change IIRC.
Indeed, and it's not set up that way, and it _still_ creates TCP links
to microsoft.com.
I haven't seen anything else to switch this off, and I _really_ don't
like it.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Subject: Re: OT: Could someone explain C++ phobia in Linux?
Date: 25 Nov 2000 17:56:57 GMT
On 25 Nov 2000 06:05:13 -0800, roger@x wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, mlw says...
>
>>
>>I can't understand the reason why anyone would use Java.
>
>And I can't understand the reason anyone would use C++.
Here's some reasons:
(*) I want to write an end user application. It's an image viewer. It must be
able to do rapid repaints, so performance is important. I want to be able to
use native widgets (GTK or QT) rather than having the application stick out
like a sore thumb on the users desk.
(*) I want to write a library for processing data. Performance is not just
important, it's *critical*. I don't want to use C, because I want a usable API,
and I want to hide the implementation details.
>>I like C/C++
>>because it can have a close relationship between what is written and
>>what is executed.
>
>so, use assembler then.
great. So you're suggesting I write my GUI application in assembler ? That would
be nice if I had an infinite amount of time on my hands.
>> When writing algorithms that can be important,
>
>really? the best language to write algorithm in is pascal. It is
>not C or C++ or Java actually.
Why ? IMO, C++ is quite good for this.
>The whole points of programming is abstraction, and Java provides
>a better abstration than C++.
How so ?
> In this way, Java is a higher level
>to some extent than C++, and so it is better for application
>development.
Sorry, "higher level" does not imply "better for application development".
"High level" is not the only consideration for app development (why is MS
Office written in C++ and not Visual Basic ?)
>>From an engineering point of view, interpreted languages have a job, and
>>compiled languages have a job.
>
>Again, you are confused. What difference does it make for you? what difference
>is it if it is compiled or interpreted or whatever?
There are performance differences. You can't tout javas advantages and
selectively ignore its weaknesses.
>> Who cares about the language?
>
>You do. You are the one who are complaining that Linux programmers
>do not like C++. Why do you care then?
He's complaining that they have what he sees as an irrational dislike for it,
and that C is being used for tasks where C++ would clearly be a better choice.
And he points out GTK+ as an example. GTK+ is being used for the bulk of the
application software in the GNOME project. Surely, you'd be on his side on this
issue, and agree that using C for application development is a poor choice.
>>C++ is
>>tedious because it has a close relationship between syntax and machine
>>code.
>
>that is why languages that provide higher level abstraction are
>more productive.
You still haven't explained how java provides "higher level abstraction".
> Becuase programmers spend the time thinking about
>the problem domain, not about the subtle interactions between the
>language and the specific platform.
No, it doesn't make them more "productive". It makes them faster at writing
inefficient code. There's a tradeoff -- you can code quickly or code
efficiently. High level languages tend to make that choice for you. C++ allows
you to choose.
>Again, you are hung up of some irrelevent aspect. Why I code, I do not
>'code for a processor'. I develop software that best represent the
>solution for a physical problem. I do not, and should not care, about
>the 'processor'.
And perhaps you don't care about performance either ? Obviously, if you
don't have to think about your codes performance, you can write code
faster. But that's not really "more productive", that's writing slow
code faster. SOmetimes, that's a good tradeof, and sometimes it isn't.
>>And, alas, we are back to this point. If you would go back and read the
>>210+ posts in this thread, you would not post such a ridiculous
>>sentence.
>
>I agree with that statment. Ansi C, is better than C++, becuase it is
>simpler.
How about this: "ANSI C is better than Java because it is simpler."
>The simple fact is that C++ use is declining every day. I get calls
Try to support this assertion with some hard facts instead of the kind of
hand waiving the C++ bashers have repeatedly invoked in their baseless
arguments.
>from agents all the time about software projects, and I have not
>seen anyone asking for C++ for a long time.
Well, you must be a really lousy C++ programmer then. I guess that explains
why you don't like C++.
>C++ is dying, the same as MFC and windows programming is dying. Why?
Why ? Because they are not.
>Becuase there are better things out there now to use.
What, everyone's going to stop using C++ and start using java ? Whatever.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 19:49:34 +0200
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> No. The RFC is the 'final' name. Before that they're called
> something like 'draft-do-me-this-protocol', then they later
> become rfc9876.txt once they're 'approved'.
>
> My question was _much_ more subtle than that. What is the
> difference between a real rfc and an 'informational' one. I
> suspect its related to IP ownership (ip = intellectual
> property here). I don't want to know whether someone thinks
> that the IETF may or may not do something, I want to know what
> they actually do.
>
> I do know that the ITU used to prevent owned IP becoming standards,
> but then relaxed that position about 6 years ago. I know about
> this because I was a UN rapporteur for about 10 years. That
> experience, amongst other things, has left me very suspicious
> about words which apparently add no value appearing in titles.
> In the standards arena, they usually mean something important,
> otherwise the editor of the document would have removed them.
Thanks for the info, but, as another poster pointed out, it's really a moot
point, as this is not the important part of what you need to know in order
to copy the way windows does it, this has
already been figured out.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 19:54:28 +0200
"Chad Mulligan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:PvST5.5571$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> BZZZZZZT Wrong answer, While Win2K does perform nicely with 128MB RAM it
> performs rather well with a mere 32-48MB RAM as well.
I also tested it on a 133 with 32MB (server version, you only need 64 for
the install) I wouldn't use it as my desktop, but it serves quite well as a
small server.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux growth rate explosion!
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:15:35 +0000
In article <7qST5.5563$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, neJ wrote:
>> >On Sun, 19 Nov 2000 21:43:25 GMT, Tim Tyler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Microsoft don't care two hoots about security - so of course this means
>> >>nothing to them.
>> >
>> >And yet look at the number of security problems in *nix systems -
>> >those infamous DOS attacks weren't lauched from Windoze platforms, now
>> >were they??
>>
>> The number of security problems in *nix systems are few and far
>> between compared to windows. Attacks are frequently launched from
>> *nix machines because the of many advantages (better IP stacks,
>> for example). I have had my router scanned by NT machines, though,
>> so they're not all done from *nix.
>>
>
>The problems with eunics are neither that few nor that far between, NFS is a
>primary case in point.
>
>
NFS is a protocol, what's the problem?
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Of course, there is a down side...
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:17:51 +0000
In article <9RST5.5585$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
>"Chris Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8v7jl9$6tl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8v6e81$bju$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:CXwR5.370$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > Organization: Self Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > Followup-To:
>> >> >
>> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, The
>> >> > Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>> >> > >In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Joseph T. Adams
>> >> > ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > > wrote
>> >> > >on 17 Nov 2000 00:52:50 GMT
>> >> > ><8v1vh2$7sc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >> > >>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> > >>wrote:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>: Oh, yes.
>> >> > >>: If Whistler is as good from 2K as 2K is from NT & 98, then
>> > Linux\Unix has
>> >> a
>> >> > >>: reason to be *really* afraid, and by the release of the system
>> > *after*
>> >> > >>: whistler, I wouldn't be surprise if those a minority even on the
>> > server.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >>Even if Microsoft released a version of 'Blows that didn't blow, I
>> >> > >>still wouldn't use it, because:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> (a) I don't willingly support criminal organizations, with my
>> >> > >> money
>> >> > >> or by any other means.
>> >> > >
>> >> > >I'm not sure this has been proven either way yet, although the
>> >> > >findings of fact were interesting.
>> >> > >
>> >> >
>> >> > #1. The Microsoft trial is OVER. They have been found guilty.
>> >>
>> >> By a judge of questionable motives and mind. He himself has claimed
>> >> that he'll be overturned, admitting his poor judgement.
>> >>
>> >> Just because a judge says you're quilty, doesn't necessarily mean
>> >> you're quilty.
>> >
>> > Um, didn't you mean to say guilty instead of quilty here? And I've to
>> > object to the last statement. If a judge rules that you are guilty, then
>> > you *are* guilty, that is what the word means. At least, that is what
>> > the word means in court. Whatever you actually did what you are accused
>> > is a whole different matter, of course.
>>
>> Even if Mcrosoft gets off in the US court, the EC is going to fry
>> them.....
>
>Wooo. There goes 1/100th of the world market.
>
>
EC is largest & richest market in the world.
Wooo.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: The Sixth Sense
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:21:57 +0000
In article <lGST5.5579$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Chad Mulligan in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 23 Nov 2000 16:59:04
>> >"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> Wrong, Netscape sold it (for around $35, if I remember right) until
>> >> M$ decided to crush their competitor.
>> >
>> >But it was available on multiple FTP Servers for free, infact, in direct
>> >contravention of law, Netscape had exclusive use contracts with many
>ISP's
>> >that forbade the ISP from supporting any customer using IE. These ISP's
>had
>> >among their number large members such as Pacbell.net and AT&T.
>>
>> What laws precisely do you think this contravenes?
>>
>
>The very same ones that you accuse Microsoft of violating. It is an "Unfair
>Business Practice" to limit support to customers because of the platform
>they use when this is done by an exclusive contract. It equates to price
>fixing...
>
>> [...]
>> >> The latest Mozilla project looks pretty promising.
>> >
>> >Still looking promising. Have they reached Alpha yet?
>>
>> TBH, I'm thinking more and more these days that Netscape sucks big dog
>> dicks, almost as much as IE does. And just as with OSes, I'm not
>> willing to go with Opera, although I'm very attracted to its
>> functionality, simply because it is not mainstream, and I'm pretty
>> conservative that way. I can use Netscape, of course, though I stick
>> with an old 4.0x version of Navigator-only. Still, I think we'd have
>> all been better off if Mr. Andreesen had taken fewer lessons in how to
>> make software from Mr. Gates. The idea of using an application as the
>> basis of middleware is as contradictory as the idea of using an OS as
>> middleware. Meanwhile, we still have no decent middleware, and not just
>> the OS but the web browsers suck, and are at a technological standstill,
>> as well.
>>
>
>So Mozilla isn't to Alpha test yet? Opera is OK but I find IE most useful.
>Netscrape hasn't had a decent version since 3.5 (that's why IE became the
>market leader BTW).
It became market leader because it was given away by the monopoly
with the monopoly OS. That's what monopolies do. I think that's
also what the court found.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Sat, 25 Nov 2000 18:32:27 +0000
In article <8votua$573vs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
>"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <8vmmm0$53o3k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> >
>> >"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In article <8vlnrb$4tvic$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ayende Rahien
>wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> >news:w_rT5.14$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> >
>> >> >Talking about the registery.
>> >> >
>> >> >>. I think MS could have done
>> >> >> a far better job by taking the dedicated partition approach. It'd be
>a
>> >lot
>> >> >> safer kept from the OS's file system.
>> >> >
>> >> >You are probably correct, the problem is that it's *much* more
>convenient
>> >> >and easier to handle files than partitions.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Convenient for whom?
>> >
>> >Practically everybody.
>> >Tools to handle files are easier to write than for partitions.
>> >And it's easier to do backup from/to files.
>> >
>>
>> Are you perhaps missing the key point here, that you store files
>> on partitions?
>
>So?
>What are you trying to say?
>That you store the files in partitions?
>But you don't *hadnle* partitions yourself, most of the time.
>
>
Therefore your claim that partition handling is a problem for
storing registry information in a separate partition is
specious.
That's what I was saying. Hope that clarifies for you.
Mark
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: A Microsoft exodus!
Date: 25 Nov 2000 18:39:21 GMT
On Sat, 25 Nov 2000 15:10:19 +0100, Tore Lund wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>Are they? Alternatives like jkl;
Not much different to hjkl. Also a reasonable choice, I guess. The only concern
is this -- do all keyboards put ; in the same place ?
> or ji,l
Nope, you really want them all in a line. If they're in a line, you can move
around without having to move or contort your hand.
> It's hard to see why hjkl should be preferable in any way.
They're on the right hand, they're in a row, they're in the middle row of
the keyboard. They're in the same place on any qwerty keyboard.
>If the layout of movement keys in vi is so sensible, why has it not been
>adopted everywhere - not even in world of Unix?
Because modal editing is awkward for small tasks. This is why emacs bindings
have been adopted as the defacto.
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
