Linux-Advocacy Digest #541, Volume #30 Wed, 29 Nov 00 21:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Whistler review. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Whistler review. (Rob Barris)
Re: Insite into Linux Kernel 2.4 (Steve Mading)
Re: does anyone care if linux does not become ultra-popular? (Steve Mading)
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("PLZI")
Re: Whistler review. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Whistler review. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Uptime -- where is NT? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Curtis)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 19:59:58 -0500
Simon Palko wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Simon Palko wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Bennetts family wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Curtis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [..]
> > > > > > » Spent time on NT, and it isn't as bad as 98, but certainly not
> > > crash
> > > > > hot,
> > > > > > » either. I haven't used 2k, because it is just NT5, with a new
> > > paint
> > > > > job. And
> > > > > > » that *matters*.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You really should use it before saying such drivel about it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yeah, sorry, I know. I don't doubt that 2k is more stable than NT4,
> and
> > > > > Whistler will be even better, but still, there's too many bodge
> fixes,
> > > and
> > > > > the whole thing desparately needs a rewrite from scratch.
> > > >
> > > > I would hav ZERO problem with Windows...if someone would come up with
> > > > an implementation COMPLETELY FREE of development by Microsoft
> personnel.
> > > >
> > > > If MS thinks that they are so hot, why don't they just release the
> > > > API spec, and challenge someone to come up with something better....
> > > > and pay the winner a prize
> > >
> > > Are you REALLY this dense? The whole Win32 API is freely available for
> > > ANYONE who wants to look at it. Have you heard of WINE? It's an
> > > implementation of Win32 on linux (may be on other *nixen now, haven't
> > > checked up on it in a while).
> >
> > WINE is an attempt at reverse-engineering, NOT a clean-room
> > implementation from a published spec.
>
> Win32 IS A PUBLISHED SPEC.
>
> It's freely available, with EVERY SINGLE API CALL DOCUMENTED.
Really. That must be why there are so many undocumented APIs.
>
> Do you know that COM is an open spec now, too? And that there is an
> implementation of COM available for Linux? Is that a reverse-engineering,
> just because it's a different implementation of the spec?
>
> --
> -Simon Palko
>
> "More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
> backs!"
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Rob Barris <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 01:00:01 GMT
In article <903vm1$4jsk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Rob Barris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <903r8m$594r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > "Rob Barris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > In article <903l4c$57ru$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
> > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > 1500 apps on one machine?
> > > > > Assuming average install time of 5 minutes, that means about 5
> > > > > days
> of
> > > > > just
> > > > > sitting there 24 a day, just installing software.
> > > > > If we assume 8 hour work days, it results in over two weeks.
> > > > > No one install 1500 apps on a machine.
> > > > > No one *need* 1500 apps on a machine.
> > > >
> > > > I have 1,177 on my PowerBook.
> > >
> > > 1,117?
> > > Doing what?
> >
> > Rephrase your question?
> >
> > Generally they launch when I tell them to, do what I want them to do,
> > ad
> > quit when I am done with them - to be realistic some are far more
> > popular than others, but they are there nonetheless. The top few might
> > be:
> >
> > Eudora
> > CodeWarrior
> > Internet Explorer
> > MT-NewsWatcher
> > MPW Shell
> > Photoshop
> > Excel
> > Word
> > Sherlock
> > SoundJam
> > AOL instant messenger
> >
> > less frequently run ones might be things like an animated GIF builder,
> > an anagram generator, an old sound synthesis program, serial port
> > tracing tools, TCP/IP network admin tools, telnet, etc.. you never know
> > what challenges each day will bring.
>
>
> 11 apps that you list by name.
> 3 apps that you didn't list by name.
> 4 taks that you may be using any number of tools to do so.
> Assuming that you are using 10 tools to do each of those tasks, you are
> still well under a 100 apps on your system.
> Let's assume that you are using 100 tools for each those tasks, you are
> still well under 500 apps on your system.
I barely know you and you want me to type in all the filenames? Heh.
What is your goal? I did a Find of Applications and thats how many
came back. Did you need a screen shot or something ?
> Unreasonable to say the least, unless you've a different defination of
> application than I do.
Application == program. Something with a menu bar / user interface,
an event loop, and some purpose for which it was written. I don't count
DLL's, plugins, scripts, etc.. something I can double click on and run.
> For that matter, assuming that the average install of a program is 10 MB,
> 1500 applications installed would result in ~14.6 GB on your HD.
> 1,117 will be ~10 GB.
If the average app took 10MB, your numbers might hold water.
However, many of my apps are under 1MB. I have a 12GB drive on this
laptop, about 4GB free. The Tools folder where most of my apps live, is
about 2.5GB. There are several dozen apps scattered around in other
locations of course.
For example this little animated GIF builder app I just downloaded,
604KB of stuff, 17 items in a folder, the app is only 376K.
It's really hard to support a 10MB "average" when 99% of apps are not
MS Office.
The biggest app folder I have is probably CodeWarrior, with all of
the docs, Win32 libraries, MacOS libraries, etc etc, gets close to 800MB.
Think I'm making this stuff up ?
> > The poster claimed that having 1500 apps would be a burden due to total
> > installation time. Here is a data point showing that this need not be
> > the case. I've probably only done 10 or 15 full blown CDROM installs
> > since June on this laptop, the rest of my stuff came from the old
> > system's hard drive or from net downloads.
>
> The point wasn't about taking old stuff from an old hard-drive, the point
> was about *installing* 1500 application on a windows machine.
Oh I agree completely. I would never want to go through 1500
installations to get up and running. Which is one reason I'm glad MacOS
does not make me do that - 99% of my programs can be moved from machine
to machine without the install process.
Rob
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Insite into Linux Kernel 2.4
Date: 30 Nov 2000 00:52:52 GMT
matt newell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: I use 2.4 test kernels full time and the only thing that I have upgraded is
: modutils and ppp. Everything works great and I can't wait until 2.4 is
: released because then I will be able to try out all the new stuff going into
: 2.5.
Really? What about the tools that use the /proc system, like 'ps'?
Aren't they pretty dependant upon matching exactly to the kernel
version?
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: does anyone care if linux does not become ultra-popular?
Date: 30 Nov 2000 00:51:13 GMT
Well, my response is this: I wouldn't have cared if it weren't for
the attitude of Microsoft that all other OS's must die. If they were
more willing to operate fairly, trying to win customers over through
legit means, I wouldn't care if my choice of OS had 90%, 9%, or .09%
of the market. In a fair, marketplace that didn't have any big bullies
engaging in anti-competitive practices, it wouldn't matter - just use
what you want, and if you have niche needs, use the niche OS that
fills those needs, and this choice wouldn't have any detrimental effects
on your ability to work with others who don't use that niche OS. I
would love to live in that fantasy world, but because of Microsoft, we
don't. In this world, niche OS's are less useful than popular ones,
due to the 'social engineering' problems of getting device manufacturers
to co-operate on drivers, trying to find apps to read the proprietary file
formats out there, and so on. In this world, the usefulness of an OS
is partly determined by how willing other OS's are to play nice with it.
If the OS is a small niche OS, other OS's won't even give it the time of
day.
------------------------------
From: "PLZI" <[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: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 00:38:01 GMT
"mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <qx2V5.29$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, PLZI wrote:
> >Now, very slowly, please explain to me, what is MS supposed to do with NT
> >group information? Provide a NT Group support for all *nix platforms?
>
> Keep it off interfaces. Or, make an interworkable standard with it.
But there is a clearly marked place for it in the standard itself.
> >Yes, NT's user groups are proprietary. They do not exist on unices. Let me
> >see. I'll put a Win32 binary file as an attachment to an email message.
Now
> >you receive that file on a very standard SMTP transport. Say you're using
> >linux. Are you now telling me, that the SMTP standard is somehow violated,
> >cause the attachment can not be run in your system?
>
> No. But you've just wasted my time and bandwidth. And your own.
> A standard would have helped us both there, I think?
A standard which defines the content of e-mail? But of course. Like, what the
hell are you babbling about?
And really, your answer had nothing to do with the question. Now. Was the
SMTP standard violated somehow?
- PLZI
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:04:53 -0500
Simon Palko wrote:
>
> "J.C." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Tue, 28 Nov 2000 13:40:30 -0500, Simon Palko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> > >> If MS thinks that they are so hot, why don't they just release the
> > >> API spec, and challenge someone to come up with something better....
> > >> and pay the winner a prize
> > >
> > >Are you REALLY this dense? The whole Win32 API is freely available for
> > >ANYONE who wants to look at it. Have you heard of WINE? It's an
> > >implementation of Win32 on linux (may be on other *nixen now, haven't
> > >checked up on it in a while).
> >
> > Um, WINE is purely the result of reverse-engineering... (why would MS
> > want to help get the w32 api set onto other OSs? to break their monopoly?
> > I can imagine them wanting that... not...)
>
> A reverse-engineering of the IMPLEMENTATION. The full spec for the API
> (with behaviors and whatnot) is freely available.
No..it is a PARTIAL spec.
>
> That's like saying that everyone's implementation of a Java VM is a
> reverse-engineering because they're only implementing the spec!
the published JAVA spec is **COMPLETE**.
The published Windows API is INCOMPLETE.
>
> --
> -Simon Palko
>
> "More fun than a barrel of monkeys... with dynamite strapped to their
> backs!"
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Whistler review.
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:07:22 -0500
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "mark" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <zmBU5.22$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bennetts family wrote:
> > >
> > >"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:8vthhl$5kru8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >>
> > >> "Bennetts family" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >> news:gPlU5.54$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >> > Fair enough.
> > >>
> >
> > >>
> > >> Any idea why?
> > >
> > >Because I understand nerdboxen well enough to know that, unless I do
> > >something stupid like leaving a bootable CD in the drive between
> restarts, I
> > >doesn't do anything except pause for about 1/2 a second during the boot.
> >
> > Restarting is a windows thing, Ayende, not a Linux thing. Linux
> > users do not need to keep restarting. The OS doesn't keep
> > stopping.
>
> Interesting, the last time I installed linux, it had to reboot after the
> install.
Ayende... you only need to install Linux ONCE.
Unlike Microshaft horse-shit, it doesn't rot with time.
> And if I didn't changed the BIOS settings or pulled the CD out, it would go
> right back to the installation screen.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:10:51 -0500
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
[snip]
| Boy, you are an odd poster, aren't you? You seem to be arguing that OSS
| is bad, in principle,
Not all software can be developed profitably as OSS.
Linux is an OS. Perfect for the open source model. The entire Linux
community use Linux including businesses and companies. One is
guaranteed that Linux will continue to be developed. There'll always be
those who will contribute.
What about applications that have a niche audience or userbase. Even
worse, niche applications that require a lot of coding and a requirement
for not much tech support or recreational apps. Games come immediately
to mind. How will that market survive in an OSS setting. Yes, you'll
have the game here and there, but not the booming market that exists in
the commercial arena.
Take graphics editing software for instance. What is there for Linux?
Which OSS efforts are underway .... The Gimp .... what else?
| but that the existence of a monopoly is sortof
| neutral. Is that it?
No. That's not it at all. I *am* against monopolies. I have always been.
MS is guilty of monopolistic practises to further their monopoly. I have
no argument with that.
Every commercial software vendor wishes to make a profit. They wish to
do so by selling their software and they will only sell if they please
their customers ... unless they are a monopoly. Therefore, they make
their software attractive to their customers and then they make their
profit which is their ultimate selfish aim, just as MS's selfish aim is
to continue making a profit through their monopoly. They need to
'nurture' this monopoly for it to continue or they can smugly feel it
will continue no matter what they do and do any crap they like with
their software. They can do the 'nurturing' in two ways. Either through
cutsy fluff that will dazzle the passing ignorant user, or offering
genuinely useful features that takes some effort and thought to
implement. I disagree with you that the latter phenomenon never takes
place in Windows development. In fact *both* take place.
Win2k is a great improvement to me over NT. You may not find these
improvements useful to *you*, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful
to anyone else. Linux is certainly not the holy grail for my purposes
because if it was you'd see how fast I'd have migrated. A lot of our
discussion has been about my not really choosing my OS and your feeling
that I was suckered. What do my disagreements on this have to do with
being neutral or otherwise about monopolies. Also, if I were to use
Linux, would I have made a choice then? If yes, why do you say that?
Finally, Ayende brings up the fact that MS supporting his language is a
good thing. Your retort was that it was not done with good or profitable
intention but only to further their monopoly. I disagreed with that
point. What does that have to do with my having neutral feelings about
monopolies? The fact that I disagree with your point that a particular
thing that MS does is to further its monopoly makes me support the
existence of monopolies? Come on T. Max, that's a grossly unfair
assessment.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.os2.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Uptime -- where is NT?
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:11:09 -0500
mark wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Giuliano Colla wrote:
> >mark wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Giuliano Colla wrote:
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 25 Nov 2000
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> >Max, listen to me.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >I don't object on counters for continuity indicators. It's the simplest
> >> >> >and cleanest solution I can see. I'm well aware that a counter rolls
> >> >> >over to zero. It's the MS implementation what I object to.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >You have given the specs for the uptime: a 32 bit value, which is
> >> >> >incremented in units of one hundredth of second, or 10 ms if you prefer.
> >> >> >This allows for a continuous increment during 497 days and something,
> >> >> >then, as any binary value it will become all 1's, and at next increment
> >> >> >it will be all 0's. OK?
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That's what anybody would expect from such a specification, and that's
> >> >> >very simple and easy to deal with, if it's intended (as it is) as a
> >> >> >continuity indicator.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Now look what NT does. It exposes a 32 bit value, which is incremented
> >> >> >in units of one hundredth of a second, as per specs, but when it reaches
> >> >> >a value 10 times smaller than the all 1's value (i.e. after 49.7 days,
> >> >> >instead 497) it goes back to zero. To be exact, when it reaches the
> >> >> >binary value 11001100110011001100110011001 it goes back to zero. It's
> >> >> >not a binary counter rolling over to zero!
> >> >> >
> >> >> >If you provide a 3 digit decimal counter as a continuity indicator, you
> >> >> >think that after 999 it will roll over to 000. But you'd never expect it
> >> >> >to go back to 000 after, say 191![...]
> >> >>
> >> >> Holy shit. All this time, I figured I was the one dropping a zero, or
> >> >> one or the other was thousandths. See how that works? You start
> >> >> thinking you're reasonably smart, and then you find you can't keep the
> >> >> simplest details straight.
> >> >>
> >> >> Well, heck, thanks for the tutorial, Giuliano. That's killer. I guess
> >> >> I was just giving a certain party the benefit of the doubt, without much
> >> >> cause. Holy...
> >> >>
> >> >> No wonder I missed it. Its just so ludicrous.
> >> >>
> >> >> WHY? I'm not going to be able to think until I figure out why! HOW?
> >> >> for that matter. HOW?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >You see? Even the fiercest fighter against MS monopoly finds sometimes
> >> >difficult just to consider that they could have done such a crappy thing
> >> >as they've done!
> >> >
> >> >As of how and why, two choices are available: incompetence (one point
> >> >for me) or sabotage for monopolistic purposes (one point for you).
> >>
> >> I resubmit my argument that if you don't expect long uptimes,
> >> you might even believe that it's in your interest to ensure
> >> that the uptime counter *always* resets between alternative
> >> monthly performance reviews.
> >
> >IOW, you select the second choice.
> >I'm afraid you credit MS of more common sense than they do actually
> >have. But you might be right.
>
> Don't forget Microsoft's amazing capabilities at marketing. They
> are probably the most successful marketing organisation of all
> time.
>
> Absolutely anything which can be used to provide a positive message
> where there shouldn't really be one would not be discounted by
> those at Redmond, in my view.
>
> Technical merit doesn't (and never did) come into their thinking,
> just 'what will help us sell'.
Including..."what methods can we devise to PREVENT competitors
products from even being purchased by their customers."
>
> Mark
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: Curtis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 20:12:08 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) posted:
| In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Curtis wrote:
| >"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> posted:
| >
| >| > Well, if you presume that the monopoly does not do what monopolies do,
| >| > which is control prices and exclude competition, perhaps. But actually,
| >| > what you are presuming is simply that the monopoly is not a monopoly,
| >| > but a competitive business. This is not the case.
| >|
| >| IBM is a company comparable to Microsoft, if not larger.
| >| IBM apperantly had a technically superior OS.
| >| Why did IBM failed? IBM is more than powerful enough to break MS monopoly
| >| (which it created, apperantly)
| >|
| >| How did MS controled the price of OS/2?
| >
| >IBM did an incredibly lousy job of marketing OS/2.
|
| Microsoft parted company with IBM. IBM didn't even get their
| windows license until the eve of the launch.
|
| curtis - are you turfing, by any chance?
Yes, I am.
--
Curtis
| ,__o
!___ _-\_<, An egotist thinks he's in the groove
<(*)>--(*)/'(*)______________________ when he's in a rut.
------------------------------
From: . <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever
Date: Thu, 30 Nov 2000 14:13:58 +1300
> Christ, this is so accurate its pathetic!
Heh... I've worked with a wide variety of users, and I've discovered that
no matter where you go, they are almost always the same...
> Quite so. You see now why I say that Linux systems are going to be _The
> Christmas Gift_ in 2001? Just imagine how easy its going to be to
> provide *whatever the hell the customer wants*, once the preload
> contacts are broken and while people are still use to pathetic monopoly
> crapware? If the OEMs can get their shit together adequately (there are
> individuals paid to know about this kind of thing in every profitable
> company) during the summer, after the Appellate Court has confirmed the
> remedy....
That is a truly beautiful thought, and I really hope it comes to pass...
I would love to see companies running all their clients on a stable solid
platform, where all my tech support requests are phone-solvable,
remotely-solvable, or at the very LEAST not due to some ridiculous design
decision.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
