Linux-Advocacy Digest #916, Volume #30 Fri, 15 Dec 00 20:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Nobody wants Windows because it don't Super Computer. (mlw)
Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linux is awful ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Corel to pull out of Linux ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: A Microsoft exodus! (Steve Mading)
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? ("John W. Stevens")
Re: Linux is awful (almost as bad as M$-Windows) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: mlw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Nobody wants Windows because it don't Super Computer.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:54:37 -0500
Patrick Raymond Hancox wrote:
>
> I gotta ask. What, if NT & Win2k are actually applications, is the actual OS
> that they are running on?
>
There is a little point for discussion here.
The Windows programs (32 bit) on NT run in a "Win32 subsystem" and
Windows 16 bit apps run within the Win32 subsystem in a windows 16 bit
subsystem.
The Native OS constructs of NT are not available to Windows
applications. The access must be emulated by the Win32 subsystem.
Windows NT low-level internals most closely resemble VMS, not Windows,
and the original concept was for NT to be a portable OS/2.
So in answer to the question "What is the OS that they are running on?"
The answer is uncertain, but we know the answer is not Windows.
--
http://www.mohawksoft.com
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Tell us Why you use Windows over Linux.
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 18:58:57 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> Here's another interesting - unsolvable thread.
>
> Name the THING you can do with Windows you
> CAN NOT do with Linux.
Blue Screen of Death.
>
> Charlie
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
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: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: 15 Dec 2000 23:51:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:> Assuming you weren't malevolent, and that this was all just a
:> prank or a game to you.
: Are those the only choices? It's either a prank/game or something
: malevolent? Such arrogance!
In this instance, yes. You lie. Now it's a matter of whether or not
you lie for fun or for malicious intent.
:>>> I guess this deceptiveness is about something serious and important
:>>> to you then, which actually makes it worse than a game.
:>> What alleged deceptiveness, Steve? Yours?
:> This deserves no reply.
: Translation: you can't substantiate your claim.
Contrary to what you might think, I am not required to repeat
myself every time you fiegn ignorance about what you just
said.
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 16:54:36 -0700
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > I think I'll just call myself a freethinker. Too many
> > > > > people have projected their own delusions onto the
> > > > > word "liberal".
> > > >
> > > > If you think left-wing liberalism is about freedom, I suggest
> > > > that you go visit North Korea, Russia, China or Cuba, or talk
> > > > to any of the millions who risked their lives to escape the
> > > > Warsaw Pact countries to North America.
> > >
> > > So you're just being politically correct. Instead of using
> > > the deprecated word "communist", you now use the p.c. word
> > > "liberal". I get it! Gee thanks.
> > >
> > > And, since some people in the U.S. call themselves
> > > "liberals", that must mean they're what we can no longer
> > > call "communist". Your logic is subtle, yet awesome.
> >
> > Actually, most liberals ARE communists.
> >
> > Thank you for the admission.
>
> Thank you for pretending not to understand the sarcasm.
>
> And, actually, this liberal is not a communist... I want to
> have my own personal computer, CDs, and other toys, and not
> have to share them with anybody.
That makes you a Libertarian! ;->
> Wait a minute, I'm not a
> liberal, I'm a freethinker, so I can be a communist and
> still have my toys. But why would I want to do that?
> So I could keep everyone else from having toys? But that
> would make me a capitalist,
Nope. Capitalists do NOT want to keep every one else from having toys .
. . they just want to be the ones to sell you the toys! :-)
> when I really want to be *royalty*!
> Wait a minute, why even become a freethinker, commie, liberal,
> or even a king, when I can become a philosopher, like
> Bertrand Russell, and advocate pacism /and/ free love.
Sure. It's easy to advocate unworkable ideologies, especially if nobody
ever takes you serious enough to try 'em out. Good work, if you can get
it, but you don't eat regularly, and the health care benefits suck.
> Yeah, that's it! But wait, if I were a king, I could
> have all the free love I want, and then have her executed.
> That's the ticket! But then the peasants would be revolting,
> and storm my Bastille!
Go for it. The guillotine awaits.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Predictions (featuring Drestin Black)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:03:32 -0500
kiwiunixman wrote:
>
> Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> > kiwiunixman wrote:
> >
> >> <snype>
> >>
> >>> Well, the roots of the American Revolution was that the Colonies
> >>> fought (and died) protecting English interests in the French and Indian
> >>> war (1754-1763). Parliament then decided that THE COLONIES should
> >>> bear the economic burden of fighting this war (as if having their
> >>> homes attacked by the French/Indian alliance wasn't enough!), and
> >>> started implementing taxes exclusively on the very portion of their
> >>> citizens who had suffered through 10 years of war already.
> >>
> >> Same for New Zealand and Australian Soldiers sent to the Bore War in
> >> South Africa, 1st WW, 2 WW, and numorous wars prior to the Bore War.
> >> Colonists who did move to the Americas were still seen as subjects of
> >> the crown, hence, they still had to full their obligationas subjects of
> >> the crown.
> >
> >
> > True...but the French and Indian war was fought for the benefit
> > of England and the crown, not the Colonies nor the colonists.
> >
> > Therefore, why should the the Colonies have paid for a war
> > which wasn't even for their benefit?
>
> As subjects of the crown, there are certain duties and obligations they
> must fulfil, and since they were (the colonists) were seen as subjects
> of the crown, they must also carry the burden, even if directly or
> indirectly they do not benefit. There could have been many within
> Britain who did not agree with the crowns policy, however, went with the
> flow, and carried the burden. In the case of benefit, the war in India
> (to take control) would have benefited traders who wanted a larger
> market. Hence, in the short term, there was a burden, in the long term,
> the colonists would have benefited from it.
Big freaking deal. The colonies only existed for the economic BENEFIT
of the crown.
Like I said... you don't send a bunch of people off to colonize
a land, draft them to fight battles against colonists from another
country...and then make THEM pay the bills for the fight that is
MUCH more in you interest than in theirs.
At that time, the modern concept of a "nation" did not exist.
There were no exact borders between the various tribes of people
in Europe... if a nobleman switched allegience from one potentate
to another...then the 'border' moved in response.
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>> The colonies' position was "we had no representation in Parliament,
> >>> let alone a vote on this issue, therefore, the taxes being levied
> >>> by the crown are illegitimate."
> >>>
> >>> Even British history books now recognise that the colonists' complaints
> >>> were not only meritorious, but that their request (representation in
> >>> Parliament) was reasonable.
> >>
> >> Whether America later would be represented in Parliament would have been
> >> highly likely as the size of the colony(s) increased, so the need to
> >> de-centralise (look into the gradual move from direct control of
> >> Australia and NEw Zealand via the Westminster Act 1911) would become a
> >> necessity, hence, later on would have gained dominion status (around
> >> 1800's).
> >
> Probably, at the very most, had to wait until 1789, when William IV
> ascended to the throne, who was more liberal and willing to limit the
> powers and influence of the monarchy.
>
> kiwiunixman
>
> >
> > True. But they weren't willing to wait who knows how many decades
> > for George to pull his head out of his ass.
> >
> >
> >
> >> kiwiunixman
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
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: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:01:47 -0700
Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
> Donovan, don't try arguing with this guy. He's quite crazy.
> It is common in schizophrenia to apply meanings to words that are
> quite outside the accepted norm.
>
> Delusional talk is a tough meme to argue against, since it
> isn't based on rationality.
>
> I give up. This guy is an automaton. Or else he's one huge troll who
> is greatly enjoying this thread.
Wow.
You attack someone for daring to "know all about you after just a few
UseNet posts", then proceed to psychoanalyze someone after . . . (get
this!) just a few UseNet posts.
Do you, by chance, have a degree that at least in some minor way
qualifies you to make these kinds of diagnosis?
Just curious, mind you . . . I have a tendency to believe that your
description (re: delusional, automated, schizophrenic troll) is
self-referential, but that's just my opinion.
"The easiest way to enslave a man, is to convince him that he is
a free thinker."
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:04:41 -0500
"Brian V. Smith" wrote:
>
> I'm asking nicely again - please keep this stuff out of the linux newsgroups!
> Don't be jerks.
>
that trick never works.
> --
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Brian V. Smith ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www-epb.lbl.gov/BVSmith
> Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
> I don't speak for LBL; they don't pay me enough for that.
> Check out the xfig site at http://www-epb.lbl.gov/xfig
>
> To the optimist, the glass is half full. To the pessimist, the
> glass is half empty. To the engineer, the glass is twice as big
> as it needs to be.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
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]>
Subject: Re: Corel to pull out of Linux
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:08:15 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> I thought I would post this first as nobody else seemed
> to be interested, not even the Wintrolls.
>
> It's of no surprise to me that as soon as Microsoft
> bought up all the Corel stock, Corel cancell's it's
> plans to continue on with it's Debian based
> Corel Office packages for Linux.
>
> It hasn't even been 6 months since the purchase
> of Corel by Microsoft and the largely sucessful
> Linux venture is being cancelled.
>
> Anybody who believes Microsoft isn't beginning to
> feel the heat from the competion from Linux
> should probably examine this situation in detail.
Time to call the Feds for YAAS (Yet Another Antitrust Suit)
>
> Microsoft won't even be in the operating system
> business by 2005 if Linux keeps growing at it's
> current rate.
>
> And they know this and they are starting in on
> their shitty worthless business tactics again.
>
> Pretty bold if you ask me, seeing how they
> aren't even thru their conviction appeal.
>
> It won't be the government which stops Microsoft.
> It will be the GPL folks working on Linux.
>
> They are the ONLY people now who stand between
> a free open market and a Microsoft dominated
> closed market with only one choice in life.
>
> You shure can't expect the FTC to do their
> jobs anymore.
>
> It's a free-for all.
>
> Charlie
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
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: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: 16 Dec 2000 00:00:10 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:> Get with the program, and try to actually read my posts for once.
: You're erroneously presupposing that I haven't actually read your posts,
: Steve.
Sorry, more presumption on my part. I presume that if you read
something I wrote you wouldn't act like I hadn't written it.
:> I already refined what I said when I realized I was dealing with
:> a pendantic twit.
: I see that you're now taking the Aaron Kulkis approach: invective
: rather than a logical argument.
No. Invectice *in addition* to logical argument, as in: "I already
dealt with this, and by the way you are a pendantic twit."
Stop and think for a moment about why you keep get yourself into
this kind of flamefest, Tholen. Then stop throwing the blame on
everyone else.
:> I refined it to not 'as much', rather than not at all. That was
:> several days ago.
: And did you read my response several days ago?
The one where you claimed the arrows are just as close as the
escape key to their fingers' home positions? Yeah. It didn't
suddenly become true in the last few days did it?
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: 16 Dec 2000 00:04:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Bruce Ediger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: The arrow keys went left arrow/up arrow/down arrow/right arrow.
: Exactly the motions that the h, j, k and l commands perform in "vi".
: I assumed that Bill Joy (or whoever) put in hjkl because of familiarity
: with VT-100 arrow keys.
The story I'd heard is that Bill Joy's terminal actually had
little arrows drawn on the keycaps right on the hjkl keys, and so
that's what he used. The fact that this was fast because it was
under the right hand (well, shifted off by one key) was not a planned
benefit. It was sort of accidental.
------------------------------
From: Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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: 16 Dec 2000 00:07:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: Steve Mading writes:
:> 1. Something that happend once in the past isn't still a problem
:> after the error has already been admitted.
: It is if you keep trying to put the onus on me. Above you suggested
: to me that I pay attention. I did pay attention. I know what Aaron
: wrote. I correctly caught your error. Whether you want to blame
: your writing or your reading is irrelevant
It became relevent once you started implying you had ESP and
could tell what I *thought*.
[Rest of the points snipped, becuase they amount to nothing
more than denying what I said. There's no point in repeating
the same damn things again, so I won't.]
------------------------------
From: "John W. Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:06:58 -0700
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > On Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:30:52 GMT, Chad Myers wrote:
>
> >Likewise, slavery could not prevail because it went against one of the
> >founding principals of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.
>
> Not at all. The authors of the constitution knew of and accepted slavery.
Partially incorrect. They knew of it, but not all accepted it.
Unfortunately, the neccessity of politcal compromise required them to
"delay that issue to another day".
> That's right, Lincoln went against tradition, radically re-interpreted
> the constitution in a way that would make a modern republican cry
> ("activist judge"),
Excuse, but your history lessons may be a bit old: Lincoln was a
President, not a judge.
> and then based on his radical interpretation, he
> pressed this view on the states. I don't see anything "conservative"
> about this at all.
It may help to realize that "conservative", as a political label, does
not conform exactly to the dictionary definition of the word.
"Conservative" does not mean: "resists all change", it refers to a
political philosophy that accepts only particular kinds of change.
> >Conservatives are willing to violate States Rights in the favor of upholding
> >founding principles of the Constitution.
>
> Lincoln went beyond this and re-interpreted the constitution.
So much so that to make it stick, they had to Amend the Constitution.
--
If I spoke for HP --- there probably wouldn't BE an HP!
John Stevens
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,alt.os.linux,alt.os.linux.mandrake
Subject: Re: Linux is awful (almost as bad as M$-Windows)
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 19:11:56 -0500
James Richard Tyrer wrote:
>
> Jeremy Bowen wrote:
>
> > Linux isn't for amateurs
> >
> > It's all in a matter of time for Linux to support these and other devices, in
> > fact it's all in a matter of getting Mfg. to port drivers, open source and the
> > like.
> >
> > Mandrake has problems so does Windows, it really boils down to what you want to
> > do. Do you want an OS that has driver and mfg support for the masses, or do
> > you want an OS that is harder to configure yet more stable.
> >
>
> I am new here, but I will but in any how. I am not an amateur [note the e-mail
> address].
>
> In logic there is something called the lamppost theory, which might apply here.
>
> They complain because they can't get "drivers" for this or that. This problem is
> caused by the existence of M$-Windows.
>
> If Linux or other *NIX were the dominant OS hardware manufactures would have to
> build their products to existing standards unless they were large enough to
> develop their own like HP (but then even they seem to have abandoned JCL and SCL).
>
> Specifically, if you came out with a new printer and it used a completely new
> software interface, how would you sell it in the *NIX only world? You wouldn't!
> You would make it use PostScript or one of the existing de facto standards which
> are supported.
>
> But, with M$-Windows, everything needs its own driver. To the point that most
> Linux newbies think that there is somewhere they need to go to down load a driver
> for their modem. Which is a good example, because all real modems do not need a
> driver in Linux. The reason is that the UARTS are compatible. If you came out
> with a new UART that wasn't at least backward compatible with existing ones, how
> could you possibly expect to sell it.
>
> You also have to consider what will happen to these various peripherals that are
> dependent on those M$-Windows drivers. I made the mistake of purchasing an
> inexpensive HP scanner because I assumed that it would be SCL based -- WRONG!!
>
> I had to take it back.
>
> But, I wondered. It came with a "driver" for M$-Windows 95 & 98. I presume that
> the anti-competetive agreements prevented them from offering a driver for 3.x.
> Yes, you can down load a driver for ME for it. But, ME will be gone in a year and
> what will happen to this non-standard product in a couple of years when it is
> discontinued? Since it appears that each new release of M$-Windows needs a new
> driver and there was no support for NT or 2000, would I have to buy a new scanner
> in 2 years because I couldn't use it with my OS upgrade?
>
> Isn't it the same with these printers that are (apparently) all different -- the
> ones they won't release the specs for (like the scanner). What will happen to
> them in a few years.
>
> But, if they were built to standards, they would still be useful till they wore
> out. Is this Micro$oft's plan.
>
> Planed obsolescence??
>
> JRT
yes.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
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.
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
