Linux-Advocacy Digest #240, Volume #31 Thu, 4 Jan 01 12:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft hurts the reputation of software engineers. ("Darren Winsper")
Re: Step-by step to install Linux RH7 and Win98.
Re: Uptimes ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Multiple Vulnerabilities in ZoneAlarm (PirateMac)
Re: Why Hatred? ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Red hat becoming illegal? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Darren Winsper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft hurts the reputation of software engineers.
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 16:26:25 +0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "mlw"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Microsoft's lack of quality, and view that software is, at best,
> ephemeral, make all software engineers look bad.
>
> When my mom works on her computer (No commercial TAX applications for
> Linux yet.) It crashes. She hates windows, but has to use it. She says
> things to me like, "why can't they make this work right?" meaning
> software engineers in general.
Hehe. That reminds me of an "ethics/morality" lecture I had during last
term (I've just started a comp. sci. degree). During it the lecturer was
eagre to point out that modern computer programs are perhaps the most
complex things ever created by man, and that people have far too high
expectations of the software. A friend of mine condensed it down to
basically telling people "hey, we're computer scientists, you can't
expect us to do everything right, or even anything right, ever" :)
> People say things at work like "I hate computers" right after Windows
> locks up or crashes. People view software as crap, and under Windows are
> generally correct.
I have to agree with you there, to an extent. However, take a look at
things like IE. Microsoft have probably outdone themselves there.
What's their cometition? Opera with its god-awful UI and hopeless DOM
support, and Netscape 6 which is very buggy.
> This "reboot your computer to fix a problem" mentality is stupid.
Very much agreed. I never reboot Linux to solve a problem unless I
absolutely have to (Which hasn't been for a good year).
> We
> have an IT department, smart guys, but been using Microsoft too long.
Perhaps. However, I've been using W2K for a while, and I must say it is
very stable. But, I have one or two show-stoppers. If I ever
hibernate the computer, bring it back up and try and load a game, the
system *will* lock tighter than Fort Knox.
> Is Linux right for the home computer? Maybe not yet. But it is very
> acceptable for the workstation and server market. One could easily
> deploy a full Linux network infrastructure, right to the desktop, in a
> company and improve reliability and reduce costs.
Perhaps, perhaps not. It really depends what software you need.
--
Darren Winsper (El Capitano)
ICQ #8899775 - AIM: Ikibawa - MSNIM: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Certified 34% bastard, 19% of which is tard.
http://www.thespark.com/bastardtest
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.hardware,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Step-by step to install Linux RH7 and Win98.
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:35:31 -0500
The original message seems to have disappeared , hence I am using this
message to reply.
Further to Mr. Evan's suggestion :
here's what my hdd looks like . It's a single 27 gb ata 66 drive, on an amd
Slot A tbird 700, 128 Mb of ram.
hda1 /boot 50MB ext2, contains lilo
PRIMARY ACTIVE
hda2 win2000 2GB NTFS 5.0
PRIMARY
hda3 win98 2GB fat32
PRIMARY
hda4 Extended (Remainder of hdd) hda5 onwards are in this
extended region
hda5 / 500MB ext2
( the root file system )
hda6 swap 128MB swap my
first swap partition
hda7 swap 128MB swap my
second swap partition
hda8 /var 200MB ext2
the "var " partition
hda9 /home 1GB ext2
Home partition that I do not format if I reisntall.
hda10 /usr 3GB ext2
All user programs go under here . Also the kernel source, the X server
system
hda11 win98Data 2GB fat32 a 2 gig
place for putting files I need quite often
hda12 Games 4 GB fat32 all
my windows games
rest of the drive is empty.
How did I do it ?
1) use partition magic 5 or higher ( Use the floppy disks ) to create the
partitions ( create hda2 as a fat32 partition- win2000 will convert it
later to ntfs). Then mark hda3 as active, reboot and install win98. As far
as it is concerned, it is being installed into a PRIMARY ACTIVE partition.
2) Set hda2 as active, and unhide hda3, ignoring all those warnings.
3) reboot, and install win2000. Don't forget to convert hda2 to ntfs.
4 ) go back into partition magic , set hda1 as active, and unhide hda2 and 3
if they were hidden.
5 ) Proceed with linux install, and when it asks you for fdisk or diskdruid,
just hit "done" and come to the mount point definition
hda1 is "/boot" and so on as indicated above.
6 ) After copying over the files, and taking care of X, it will ask you
where to put lilo .This is where a lot of beginers set themselves up for
trouble . So save yourself the hassle and put lilo into /dev/hda1 , and DO
NOT overwrite the MBR . Lilo will find win98 and win2000 partitions and
give them some labels. you are free to go in and edit them .
7 ) Finish installation.
At boot prompt ("LILO" )hit TAB . you will see
linux win2000 win98
LILO:
This is if you labeled hda2 as "win2000" and hda3 as "win98" during setup.
If you did not, you will see "dos", and "win" or something similar.
Type the label to boot that particular partition .
If something went wrong, use partition magic and set ( hda3) win98 as
active.Or if you prefer win2000, hda2 Upon rebooting, win98 (or win2000 )
will start booting up , and you never see lilo. If you want lilo back
assuming you took care of the problem using win98 (or win2000) ) , set
hda1 as active.
At this point, if you feel the need to reinstall either os ( win98 or
win2000 ) , just set the interested partition as active, and proceed with a
reinstall.
I'm using Rh 6.0 with XFree86 4.0.1 . GeForce 2MX card needs 4.0.1 with the
nvidia module from NVidia, or just get the 4.0.2 XFree86 package, save
yourself some trouble.
Since you say you're a newbie, here's some lilo help:
LILO: linux single
boots into run level 1 , with no network support , so that you can fix
problems ( sendmail hanging ? ) .
once at a command prompt,
type "init 5" to switch to run level 5, where x windows comes up.
init 3 to go to the Command line level (3) . Note that at 5, the command
line is available also .
Also while at a command prompt, ( after login, of course ) , type "startx"
to get into X .
You have atleast 5 consoles Alt-F1 to Alt-F5, on which you can log in, and
do command line stuff.
While in X, to get to console 1 , it is Ctrl-Alt-F1.
To kill the X server abnormaly ( you can't see anything!! )
Ctrl-Alt-Backspace. This will cause a core dump.
/var/log/xfree86.log is generated by 4.0 and above X servers. It might help
you in figuring out X problems.
HTH
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:01:07 -0600
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "JSPL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Last I heard CNN had reported that amazon.com was down the day after
> > Thanksgiving ( and a few other suspicious times of the year) but
> > microsoft.com or any other huge and popular IIS site has never been
down.
>
> I beg to differ, microsoft.com goes down all the time -- I'll get
> connection refused on one attempt and then the next attempt goes
> through. Anyone can throw 60 machines into a connection pool and
> claim unlimited uptime -- it says nothing about how long each
> operating system gives out service.
Connection refused by the server? or a timeout? If it's the first, then
that means the server is running. If it's the second, then it's probably
dropped packets along the net, something that is very common. It happens to
me on all kinds of sites, including Slashdot and others.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiple Vulnerabilities in ZoneAlarm
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PirateMac)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 16:44:58 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (John Navas) wrote in
<_UH46.59$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>[POSTED TO comp.dcom.modems.cable; PLEASE REPLY THERE]
>
>In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (PirateMac)
>wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob) wrote in <3a50b61f.2703467@news-
>>server.houston.rr.com>:
>>
>>>No one ever considered that to be a serious OS. It was meant for the
>>>Macintosh crowd, who would not know a serious OS if one hit them
>>>square in the face.
>>
>>I tak ethat as an afront sir. You speak of MS being buggy OSes and
>>applications, and then you trod upon the name of the most stable OS in
>>recent years? Shame on you. Go hug a penguin.
>
>Put your advocacy gun back in your holster -- he was trodding on
>Microsoft Bob (and a well-deserved trod it was), not Linux.
>
>p.s. The crown of "most stable OS" probably goes to QNX, with honorable
>mention to the BSD camp. (This is *not* a putdown of Linux, which also
>scores well on stability if you select and configure carefully, so
>please spare me an extended rebuttal.)
>
>[follow-up to comp.os.linux.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy]
>
In actuality, he was trodding on MacOS, and that is what I take the afront
to! He seems to me a penguin hugging hippie! hehe.
( I was making a weak attempt at a joke. I am a Machead, as if the name did
not imply this.)
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2001 11:08:46 -0600
"Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
> > "Nick Condon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> > > > If you don't believe it. Name a script in Unix that can't be done
on
> > > > Windows.
> > >
> > > Let's start with a nice easy one, this script tests whether it is a
> > background
> > > or foreground process and mails it's opinion to 'nick' on the current
> > machine:
> > >
> > > #!/bin/sh
> > > if [ -t STDIN ]
> > > then
> > > TYPE=foreground
> > > else
> > > TYPE=background
> > > fi
> > > echo "I'm a $TYPE process" | mail -s "Script Results" nick
> >
> > You are aware that this is a function of the shell, not the OS. Right?
> >
> > Bash exists for NT, and you can do virtually the same code with that.
>
> I can see 3 seperate reasons why this script will not work on NT-Bash. How
many
> can you spot?
None of them are, actually.
> > Or you can use Perl through WSH. I'm sure you're not going to suggest
that
> > you can't do this through perl.
>
> ditto Perl. And those 3 reasons are characteristics of the OS, not the
shell.
You are aware that MAPI is an available object in a Windows Scripting Host
script, right?
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Red hat becoming illegal?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:08:48 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 04 Jan 2001 14:04:37
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 04 Jan 2001 01:10:00
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 03 Jan 2001 14:11:20
>> >> [...]
>> >> >However, liberals in America like to make up rules as they go,
>> >> >to suit their needs, so the liberal FL SC decided to just
>> >> >wing it and make up laws and changed the already prescribed
>> >> >election certification process ad hoc. This was in gross
>> >> >violations of the Seperation of Powers, and of the laws
>> >> >set forth in Amendment 14. See, back in the post-slavery
>> >> >days, local governments would be constantly changing laws
>> >> >to prevent Black people from voting. Amendment 14 prevented
>> >> >laws from being written to exclude people, and it also
>> >> >prevented laws from being changed AFTER the election to change
>> >> >the result of the previously held election. This 2nd part
>> >> >is EXACTLY what happened in Florida (by the FL Supreme Court)
>> >> >and is why the US SC stepped in and vacated their decisions.
>> >>
>> >> Honestly, you can't see how this kind of flagrant partisan poppycock
>> >> undermines your position?
>> >
>> >T. Max Devlin Dictionary for the Mentally Inept:
>> >
>> >"Partisan Poppycock" n. syn. see "truth" 1.) To provide accurate,
>> >fact based, and substantive arguments.
>>
>> Guffaw.
>>
>> I'll take that as a 'no'.
>
>It's fact. I present facts, proof, and reasonable conclusions. You label
>this as "partisan poppycock". Meanwhile, you spew forth insults, lies,
>and conjectures with NO facts, proof, or reasonable conclusions drawn
>from the facts, and you seem to take the higher ground. You have some
>serious issues you should get checked out.
>
>It's mainly immaturity. You can't accept the fact that you have no
>basis for your argument AT ALL and you can't accept that fact that
>you lost so badly.
>
>Just give it up, Max.
Mind-boggling.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:08:50 GMT
Said Form@C in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 01 Jan 2001 09:59:45 GMT;
[...]
>All very true. The problem is that the Windows approach has become a
>standard (of sorts) by sheer weight of numbers, in spite of being a closed-
>source system.
The problem with Windows is that Microsoft illegally monopolizes PC OSes
with predatory, anti-competitive business practices. That, and the fact
that the registry is a stupid idea and a worse implementation, and the
Win32 API is about as neat as a vomiting ten-year-old.
>>OK, let's try this thought experiment. Microsoft releases the source
>>code to all their products, including Windows 98, ME, NT, 2000, etc.
>>They also release all the internal documents regarding Windows NT and
>>98's architecture and design. The two questions I have then are as
>>follows:
>>
>>1.) Would Windows NT and 98 be established as an open standard?
>
>Why would they need to "be established" as an open standard? They already
>have wide distribution, a lot of developers and a huge user base. It would
>simply be a name change from "closed" to "open" standard.
You misunderstand the nature of standards. You also confuse a
proprietary code base for a monopoly. This certainly would seem to make
sense, these days, as that is the primary reason to have a proprietary
code base, but they are not as inherently linked as dishonest people
would have you believe.
>>2.) What would happen to Microsoft in terms of revenue? Well, one
><snip
>
>Assuming that this scenario were to take place in the present time:
>
>M$ has really got two parts. OS design and application design.
[...]
Now, this is starting to sound familiar....
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:08:52 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 1 Jan 2001
>"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Form@C" wrote:
>>
>> > All very true. The problem is that the Windows approach has become a
>> > standard (of sorts) by sheer weight of numbers, in spite of being a closed-
>> > source system.
>>
>> Very well put. Microsoft had been a standard for many years, esp. 1994
>> and before, because it was the only operating system on the table for
>> the Intel platform. The exception may have been Xenix, but hell, who
>> wanted to run Xenix? Anyways, I remember the days when MS Windows was
>> the only OS out there. Just as a data point, I'm talking about my
>> experiences in 1993. It was simply horrid. But, Win didn't HAVE to be
>> good, because it was the only OS out there for the PC, and MS was taking
>> advantage of the whole PC explosion. As long as sales were good, MS had
>> no reason to improve the reliability of their OS. Also, I, as many
>> other computer users must have thought, assumed that when Windows (3.1)
>> crashed, it wasn't because the OS was bad. I assumed it was something I
>> was doing wrong, had something configured wrong, or maybe there was
>> something wrong with my computer.
>
>In 1993 there were quite a few other OS's. OS/2 2.0 was released in 1992,
>Novell's UnixWare was available that year, there was also SCO and a few
>other PC based Unix OS's. Linux was even available, though in larval form
>still. NT was released in 1993 as well.
It certainly seems remarkably difficult to figure out what is
"available", what is an "alternative", what is a "standard", and what is
an "illegal monopoly attained through anti-competitive business
practices", isn't it?
>> When Linux came upon the scene and started eating into MS's sales, MS
>> saw that users were getting smarter, and that people were realizing that
>> yes, maybe Windows IS unreliable. So, I suppose a big issue was
>> improving the reliability come the next release of Doze, which at the
>> time was Win 95. Of course, there's only so much you can do to improve
>> the reliability of an OS that is based on DOS.
>
>Windows 95 was a stopgap measure, designed to move users to Win32 based
>applications. MS wanted people to move to NT as soon as possible, but it st
>ill took them another 5 years to start the migration in force.
Ironically enough, MS could have had that accomplished within six
months, at any time, simply by lowering the price of NT. They've been
holding out for five years with the hope of raising the price of a
Windows OS for the majority of the market from two to five times higher.
Now, they say its going to be "Whistler", since obviously it wasn't W2K,
or NT 4 before it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:08:53 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 03 Jan 2001
>Donn Miller wrote:
>>
>> "Form@C" wrote:
>>
>> > All very true. The problem is that the Windows approach has become a
>> > standard (of sorts) by sheer weight of numbers, in spite of being a closed-
>> > source system.
>>
>> Very well put. Microsoft had been a standard for many years, esp. 1994
>
>it's a "de facto" standard, as opposed to a REAL standard.
Its a monopoly, as opposed to any kind of standard at all.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:08:54 GMT
Said Adam Warner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 2 Jan 2001 14:07:04
>Some AC wrote:
>
>> Allowing administrators to configure Unix through text files is the
>> OS's Achilles' heal. IMHO it will eventually lead to the downfall of
>> the OS.
>
>LOL. That is so dumb :-)
>
>Anyone remember how much easier Windows 3.1 applications were to configure
>when you could edit the text-based INI files?
>
>It was also really easy to BACK THEM UP.
>
>This is only a question for me to try and understand why INI files died such
>a sudden death:
>
>Did Microsoft dictate that for an application to get a Windows 95 compliance
>logo that INI files had to be abandoned and the registry used?
Ding Ding Ding. Would you like to try for the $1000 question, or take
your winnings and go home? ;-0
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:08:55 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 1 Jan 2001 09:38:00
>Perry Pip wrote:
>
>> >Oh life is so hard using Windows isn't it!
>>
>> When it takes one twice as long to do one's works under Windows it's
>> unreasonable at all to dislike it.
>
>What are you doing wrong?
Using Windows. I think he left a "not" out of his comment.
>> >Because you guys keep reporting misinformation about Windows that's why!
>>
>> Misinformation?? Where?? You're the one with six years Windows
>> experience, a week of Linux experience...claiming Linux is not as
>> good.
>
>I see misinformation here all the time. People report that Windows is so
>unstable it crashes with an hour or two. Yet, the machines I use do crash
>but not as often. Someone claimed a machine would not stay up beyond a
>month - I had a web server that lasted two months. That kind of
>misinformation!
Holy mother of god.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:08:57 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 1 Jan 2001 22:04:09
>Joseph T. Adams wrote:
>
>> : I see misinformation here all the time. People report that Windows is so
>> : unstable it crashes with an hour or two.
>>
>> Not misinformation. Merely a different experience. A 'Doze box with
>> DLL conflicts, bad drivers, or even marginally bad hardware is going
>> to crash a lot. One without such problems will crash much less.
>
>They don't report it as a different experience. They report it as fact, as
>in every Windows system will crash after a few hours.
Pointing out that someone is using a bit of hyperbole does not make
their comments incorrect.
[...]
>> BTW: I get consistently better uptimes with NT than do most folks,
>> because as a developer, I have a fairly good idea of what kinds of
>> things can bring it down, and, therefore, how to avoid those things.
>> Conversely, I experience more crashes (of apps, never the OS) with
>> Linux than most others I know, because I tend to use a lot of
>> bleeding-edge stuff. But I realize that in both realms, my
>> experiences are atypical. They certainly do not constitute grounds
>> for representing the experiences of others as "misinformation."
>
>Correct. However Linux advocates here appear to represent this as typical
>behaviour, not specific to their experience. That's misinformation.
Bullshit.
[...]
>> Windows and OLE/ActiveX/COM/COM+ (now re-christened ".NET") may
>> improve significantly during that time as well. I kind of hope they
>> will, but I'm skeptical. From a developer's perspective, I don't see
>> that they have improved drastically since their inception. They've
>> become slightly more stable, but still come far short of the
>> reliability and usability that I've come to expect from any UNIX-like
>> system.
>
>Be careful with your usage of COM. COM itself is merely a standard way of
>representing interfaces, something that is present in Java (but not called
>COM). That, of itself, is not any more stable or unstable as it represents
>a binary contract (or description of a black box).
Which is to say that it is, in truth and fact, as unstable as the rest
of Microsoft's crapware.
>If you're talking about implementations of COM servers that do different
>things, that's a different story.
Personally, I don't really care. It is not uncommon that the trolls who
can't stand to hear Windows disparaged (the working hypothesis is that
this makes them defensive, in fear that they will be exposed for having
been simply making excuses for all those years, once it becomes common
knowledge just how preposterously bad a product Windows is) will either
argue technical design merit (the amassed 'benefits' of Win32 and
OLE/ActiveX/COM/COM+ and whatever other closed APIs Microsoft wants to
illegally monopolize) and ignore the routine use of predatory business
strategies that ensure no more superior (existing!) efforts can aid the
consumer in avoiding monopoly lock-in, or they will argue the 'success'
of Windows, and, ignoring how ludicrously unreliable and poorly
performing Windows is, trumpet these same "middleware" specifications as
providing such terrific power and capabilities for application
developers. Either the technical or the market line of the Microsoft
Apologist resolve to the same duplicitous dichotomy; the monopolization
of Win32 (et. al,), in addition to the monopolization of PC OSes in
general.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2001 17:08:58 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 2 Jan 2001 09:16:42
>JM wrote:
>
>> Misinformation? As far as you know, they may have been using Windows
>> machines that crash all the time. I for one have come accross some
>> Windows programs that can crash the entire system.
>>
>> As far as we know, YOU may be the one emitting "misinformation".
>> No-one can prove a thing accross the Internet.
>
>My point was that they are saying Windows this all the time. Period. No
>qualification. No "on my system". That's misinformation.
It may be hyperbole; it may be an exaggeration. Chances are FAR more
likely, as any reasonable person is already aware, that it is simply a
bit of rhetoric. The phrase "all the time" is often and widely used to
indicate arbitrary but specifically high recurrence of a phenomenon. In
fact, it is so obvious that Windows does fail 'all the time', in this
way, yet does not fail *every single time*, that a reasonable person is
forced to recognize that you are not being a reasonable person in your
reading of the information being provided. That makes you an
intellectually dishonest person, Pete, if its true.
>> >How about "shithead" or "liar" or "Wintroll". Those are the REAL insults!
>>
>> Or "linsux" or "Penguinistas", or swangomoree's infamous 500 line
>> "Linux sux the big wazoo!".
>
>I never use insults in my posts - until I've been insulted first, then
>they're fair game.
An conveniently, it ignores the fact that whether someone has been
insulted is a subjective consideration, leaving you free to insult
anyone you wish as much as you wish, as long as you don't "call them
names", while providing you with a simple justification for adopting a
passive-aggressive air of superiority.
>Besides, I don't believe Linux sucks.
Yes, but you don't believe its much more powerful, useful, practical,
and valuable than Windows. You don't recognize how pathetically bad
Windows is. You don't realize that your opinion on these matters has
been blinded entirely by monopolization. You don't understand what that
means, either, I'll warrant.
In the balance, you are certainly a less flagrant MS Apologist than,
say, Erik Funchenbusch or 'JS/PL'. But sniping at people who say that
Windows crashes 'all the time', or even 'every hour or so', in a fit of
frustration with monopoly crapware; that definitely makes you an MS
Apologist.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
