Linux-Advocacy Digest #587, Volume #31 Fri, 19 Jan 01 18:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 03:26:31 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 17 Jan 2001 01:25:31
[...]
>Well, nothing defines anti-competitive activity like Apple. [...]
>Apple isn't as popular as IBM was, or as popular as Microsoft IS.
One of these statements must automatically be incorrect. My guess is
that its the first one, and the mistake is that you don't know what the
word "anti-competitive" means. You're using it wrong.
Apple has a product. They are the only one that makes that product.
That doesn't make them anti-competitive. Nor does the fact that that
product includes multiple components, both OS and hardware. Years ago,
before Unix, that was the way everybody figured computers would always
be. Even among Unix vendors, you can see a great deal of effort used to
differentiate the 'flavors', resulting in Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX, for
example. I expect that once the illegal monopoly is remedied, the PC
OEMs will align with various Linux distro producers, and the two might
ultimately become a single market.
If Apple doesn't encourage license-free cloning of their platform,
they're going to go out of business, I would think. But they are
tenacious; people have been proclaiming the demise of Apple since Apple
started.
[...]
>> Did you ever use DOS? Did you ever try to install drivers in
>> DOS or Windows 3.x?
>
>Yes. Ironiclly, the process of installing hardware under MS-DOS WAS less
>step intensive than under Linux today.
And even more ironically, the process of installing hardware under
Windows is usually more steps than under Linux, as well. An idealistic
'put the cd in and click something' aside, there are often multiple
control panels, and that last step "reboot and then recreate the
machine's state" is a real doozie.
>> You don't seem to be aware of even the basic problems of
>> DOS including the need to do manual memory management and
>> do so while dealing with competiting applications requirements.
>
>I am fully aware of how DOS was. It's quite structurally similar to how
>Linux IS. Not technicaly mind you, but from the END USER STANDPOINT.
No, not from their, either. From a non-end user standpoint, yes. If
you are ignorant of both, they certainly seem similar.
>> What might suit one app or game might cause another to fail
>> to even load. That's why third party tools vendors like Norton
>> and Quarterdeck did so well.
>
>And if those companies made similar software for Linux, you guys might have
>something.
You don't need such things in Linux. But, yes, high-level utility
packages are just one of the many application markets denied anyone who
doesn't swear fealty to One Microsoft Way.
>Think about it, the "conflict manager" for Linux from Symantic's
>Norton division. Find all program dependencies quickly, easily, and resolve
>them just as simply. Runs in the background, works all the time.
Go for it. You could make a mint, even if you aren't able to GPL it.
>They would make a fortune, and Linux might just take off from the tech-heads
>testing ground.
Well, that part happened about four years ago. Logarithmic growth
curves are tough to spot in the beginning. And there's always the
necessity for there to be a free market before anyone's going to get
very far in it.
>> >popular than OS/2 Warp was, despite the dual marketing blitz.
>>
>> Microsoft owned the new standard and IBM didn't have access to it.
>
>Why was it the standard? Something in the past had attracted more people to
>make THAT the standard.
Actually, no. The end users didn't have to be at all attracted to it;
the OEMs are what locked the industry into the Microsoft monopoly.
Hell; anybody could have sold in the market at the time, because the
market hadn't been built yet; somebody would try just about anything you
put in a box. The barriers to entry were very low. Until one vendor
who had market power (sales; a leap to 'popularity' would be uncalled
for, as I've explained) because of a tie to IBM and no need to price
their product competitively (there intent was not to sell software, but
to monopolize) was able to gain monopoly power using something called
per-processor licensing. This made it cheaper for any OEM to sell all
DOS than to sell even mostly DOS, even when it would have been most
attractive to sell some DOS.
No, it never really did have anything at all to do with quality, or even
'popularity'.
>> Even when it was still just OS/2 and Win3x, Microsoft was the
>> owner of the definitive version of "what everyone used".
>
>They still used it because it WAS superior to do what they wanted. And
>that's what matters.
No, they used it because it was superior to not using anything, and
those were the only two choices. That's what matters.
>> Quality had nothing to do with it.
>
>It had enough quality for them.
Is that why its become traditional to always upgrade to the newest
version?
>If something had come out with better
>quality AND ease of use, along with documentation and support, Microsoft
>wouldn't exist today.
If Microsoft didn't exist today, a lot of people would have come out
with better quality AND ease of use, along with documentation and
support. Ironically enough, we know this to be the case because
Microsoft has 97% of the market locked in to a Win32 OS monopoly. If
they were competitive, they would have competition.
>> "All things weren't equal". The ideal that the naieve ECON 100
>> model assumes didn't exist. Infact, even the naieve ECON 100
>> version of supply and demand acknowledges that certain markets
>> have different demand characteristics.
>
>But they all follow what the consumer demands, don't they. Consumer demands
>follow inflation, deflation, branding, and general popularity.
Consumer demand demands diversity; competition. This is the Economics
101 principle you're missing. Without competition, there is no free
market. Without a free market, the concept of 'consumer demand' becomes
meaningless. One might as well call them 'capitulations of the
victims'.
[...]
>> The real world is seldom as simple as theory.
>
>But theroy often applies.
Only in theory. ;-)
>> Besides, you didn't even completely represent the ideal.
>
>The ideal seems to be that Microsoft had the better product.
No, the ideal is that supply and demand results in better products.
Which is why your not completely representing that ideal when you
consider Microsoft's products 'better', since by entirely controlling
the supply (monopolizing), Microsoft, not the free market, determined
the demand.
[...]
>The POINT is that WINDOWS PROVIDED A BETTER UI. And it did it by bypassing
>the shortfalls of DOS. And the CONSUMER LIKED IT.
Did the consumer ever try DesqView? No, most of them didn't. They
never got the chance; Microsoft started force-bundling Windows as a
prerequisite for getting DOS. The application barrier wasn't as high
back then, certainly, but that would change once Windows was in place.
Then Office bundling started. Also, the bolting of IE which got them
caught.
>> >interested in PC's, and the idea that it's not as diffucult as "C:\>"
>> >anymore.
>>
>> Except Win3x didn't insulate you from a dosprompt.
>
>It didn't have to "insulate", it only had to provide a logical, and
>functional alternative, which it did. And again, the consumer agreed.
Yes, rather desperately. Which stands to reason, considering how
painfully limited and completely inadequate the DOS prompt is in
comparison to, for instance, a Unix shell.
Still, arguing that GUIs aren't a good thing is to deny that Apple made
a fortune making them popular before Microsoft used the idea to prevent
competition in the PC OS market.
>> If you wanted to play games, even Win95 didn't completely
>> achieve this.
>
>Win95 introduced the DirectX multimedia layer, which revoulitionized PC
>gaming.
No, it didn't; it bottlenecked PC gaming. More monopoly crapware. Its
pretty pathetic that the consumer is forced to put up with it. Every
time I see that tell-tale slump in performance that indicates its a
DirectX program, I curse it.
Fact is, Microsoft was afraid, as always, that the revolution in PC
gaming might loosen their grip on the monopoly if they didn't make sure
they assimilated it to prevent competitive development.
>The consumer agreed, and more games were made for Windows & DirectX
The consumer had no choice; of course they'd want their games to be on
whatever OS they're using. They didn't choose it to begin with, so the
monopoly has no problem making sure that if consumers want Windows, they
have to accept DirectX. Meanwhile, Microsoft is running around like a
mad-man spending millions of dollars to coerce game developers into
supporting DirectX, so if consumers want games, they have to accept
DirectX, thus locking them further into having to accept Windows.
This fucking monopoly shit is really insidious. I only wish I was half
as crazed as describing it makes me sound; perhaps it wouldn't scare me
so much, then.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:15:09 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 17 Jan 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, J Sloan wrote:
>>Chad Myers wrote:
>>
>>> I wish you people would stop joining into the middle of the
>>> thread and misquoting me.
>>>
>>> He said that ReiserFS was shipping, which is a lie.
>
>This man is clearly on drugs.
>
>Reiser is shipping with Mandrake and Suse right now
>and has been for several releases.
Let me clear this up before we go back and forth a couple more times.
When Chad says "shipping", he doesn't mean "being distributed", he means
"being distributed in release (non-beta) version." Its obvious from the
way he says it. Its stupid, but that's Chad, you know?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:44:54 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 17 Jan 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Karel Jansens wrote:
>>On Tue, 16 Jan 2001, Charlie Ebert wrote:
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Karel Jansens wrote:
>>[snip]
>>
>>>>Oh, I don't know. I had a 386sx with a whopping 6 megs and a craayzy 40
>>>>meg - Yes, folks, that 40 as in four-oh! - hard disk. It could have run
>>>>Excel.
>>>>
>>>>It didn't. I preferred Quattro Pro for DOS. Call me stubborn. Back then
>>>>it was 123 or Quattro anyway; if you mentioned Excel to serious number
>>>>crunchers, they'd say: "What?" and susequently refuse to buy you beer
>>>>anymore.
>>>>
>>>>Ahhh, those were the days...
>>>
>>>123 is still faster.
>>>
>>Heretic!
>>Apostate!!
>>Worshipper of Satan!!!
>
>Yes yes yes! That is me.
>
>>Oh... <G>, obviously.
I don't get it. Of course 123 is still faster. What am I missing?
<g>
>>>>As a sidenote, I believe both Excel and Word (1) entered the Windows
>>>>scene at about the same time: the same magazine had a review of Word as
>>>>well.
>>>
>>>Word was ahead of Excel by a year or more.
Actually, Excel was ahead of Word by close to a year, at least. Excel
was sold with Win386 bundled months before Win3.0 was released. Word
for Windows 1.0 was released at the same time (and 2.0 came out with
Win3.1) Word for DOS was an entirely separate code-base (and mostly,
but not entirely, a different program.) It went from 2.0, I think, when
they bought it, to 4.0, and was a respectable alternative, if not quite
a competitor, to WordPerfect. True to form, the last version, 5.0, was
released just before Word for Windows, and sucked royally.
Did anybody else notice Microsoft's habit of coming out with a really
pathetic 'last version' when they have a forced upgrade path in mind?
Look at WinME or NT SP6.
>>I've never bothered to follow the (d)evolution of Word. In fact, the only
>>version I have is Word 2, which came on a ROM card with my Omnibook 425. It
>>also had Excel 4 and Windows 3.1. (weirdly enough, Windows 3.1 on XIP ROM does
>>not seem to be any faster than on a spinning disk based machine - go figure)
Word 2.0 was without a doubt the best version of Word Microsoft ever
made. Sure, it was buggy, but aren't they all? It was, I swear to god,
almost a really good wordprocessor. The version after that (Word 6.0, I
believe) didn't completely suck rocks, either. But Word 2.0 was
really... bearable. And being a bearable GUI wordprocessor on the PC
was damn attractive. I gave up WordPerfect for DOS for Word 2.0. And I
got screwed for it.
>Umm.. I speak the truth bwana.
Mmm. Me too.
[...]
>>Ahem. I happened to be a DR-DOS and Geoworks fan. I would have been a DesqView
>>fan if I could have afforded the hardware.
>
>I've used DesqView and I like it. In fact, somewhere around here
>I still have my licensed copy in a box!
Put it on E-bay. I bet you'll make a bundle! (Let me know when...)
>That was some wild working
>stuff wasn't it. DesqView would be the closest thing I could grab
>a hold of as a memory to what I see Linux as today, console mode.
Yes! DesqView would probably have been a very popular product, and
would have been a defining development in PC computing. Linux would
have gone on from there, of course. DesqView... that stuff was
*dangerous*. I think its a mark of just how dangerous it was that it so
swiftly and without ceremony disappeared from the market. I can just
imagine the emails on *that* one.
>It had the reliability. It has an easy to master ncurses like
>desktop. It has the functionality. It had the uptime.
>
>Novel had some server software which would sequence your memory
>writes with the cylinders on your harddrive in sweeps! Remember
>that! It had the performance.
>
>I used that for probably 5 years at work.
>
>Then Windows finally turned from novelty into a competitor and
>Windows took our Novel performance boxes away forever.
>
>We never had good service from that point forward.
Ain't that the truth.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 03:29:58 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 17 Jan 2001
>In article <2qR86.323$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Well what do you expect from a man who claims Linux doesn't scale
>>> well. How many god damn super computer clusters do they have
>>> to build with Linux before EF comes to his senses?
>>
>>Why do you keep making this shit up? I never said any such thing, and your
>>continuing practice of saying otherwise is beginning to get annoying.
>
>Making it up!
>
>Bullshit EF!
>
>If you've said this once you've said it a thousand times!
>
>Your worse than a GD 3 year old EF.
>
>First you say something, people can reprint it, look it up, and
>YET you DENY it EVER HAPPENED!
Oh, please, quite with the histrionics, Charlie. You friggen YELL too
much!
Erik 'deny it ever happened'; that's not his style. He denies what "it"
is. When he says something pathetic like this, he's playing on the
ability to point out any change whatsoever between his phrasing and
yours to pretend that you aren't accurately characterizing what he said.
He can deny whether its consistent with anything else that he said, and
ignore the lack of practical purpose in being so pedantic, but those are
much easier. It helps, obviously, if you're going to involve yourself
with responding to one of those asinine statements of his, if you
literally do quote him. It won't help, much, but it makes the
discussion clearer for the readers.
>You are the most unbelievable asshole I've ever met on the internet
>and your a total fucking liar.
Well, you haven't been around very long, then, Charlie. As far as
unbelievable assholes go, Erik doesn't rate very highly, in fact. He's
more of a sock puppet than a troll, really. Both are entirely
dishonest, though, you're right about that.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:53:20 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 18 Jan 2001
01:40:00 -0600;
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>
>> > Note the term *MEAN* in Mean Time to failure. That means *AVERAGE*, not
>> > peak. That means there were in fact machines with much longer uptimes.
>>
>> Which also means there were machines with much shorter uptimes.
>
>What your nicely clipped response fails to show is that yttrx claimed that
>it was "not likely" that there were longer uptimes. Of course "mean" also
>means that there were less, yet yttrx chooses to put his head in the sand
>and think that this number means the maximum uptime somehow. Mig apparently
>(from his comments) feels the same.
Actually, and not surprisingly, you're mistaken, Erik. Although your
confusion is understandable, a "mean time to failure" metric is not a
simple "average" of times systems were up. It is the projected average
time before *any* system, statistically, *will* fail. It is *possible*
a system can be up longer. It is *probable* it will fail earlier, given
anything but idealistic circumstances.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:53:49 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 17 Jan 2001 06:10:03
[...]
>I know. I pre-date MS-DOS. CP/M was better
>
>That isn't the point.
Indeed, it is.
>The point is that lame as the platform and OS powering it were, it sold so
>well that they didn't need to concern themselves with any other platform.
You seem to be proposing that a profit-seeking business would be
interested in not making more money. No, good sales are not a real good
reason for turning down a market opportunity. As a matter of fact, now
that you brought it up, it was largely anti-competitive efforts to
monopolize the OS which kept the platform lame, by being 'uncompatible',
through Microsoft's passive, if not active, efforts, to change the
platform. And the OS didn't sell well, but was force-bundled.
[...]
>> That just demonstrates a pattern of total negligence.
>
>Exactly. Good word for it!
Criminal negligence, in this case.
[...]
>> >software vendors didn't have a choice either. It was either concentrate
>> >support on that one platform or take a losing bet on one of the others.
>>
>> This is pure bullshit.
>
>Its' what happened, though.
I believe he disagreed, quite strongly. What are you, a moron? ;-)
Just to clear things up, it was the 'losing bet' that made the bullshit
most pure. You're presupposing that the bet would have been lost, based
on the fact that it wasn't taken, it seems. There was no 'concentrate
support', just 'get locked in to a monopoly'. There's no reason or need
to second-guess why or how anybody got locked in to a monopoly. You
can't blame the victim for the crime. Monopolizing is illegal.
>> If you're going to support multiple platforms, then you are already
>> engaging in a considerable expense. Making sure that a wp8 file
>> from a Sparc will look the same as a wp8 file on a PC is not that
>> much more of a burden.
>
>No it isn't. But, when corporate policy is concentrate on the PC development
>and give the others a token product...
The point Jedi is trying to make is that we know from Microsoft's own
internal documents that they don't work that way. They didn't
'concentrate' on the PC development, they excluded Macintosh
development. Because it actually threatens their Windows OS monopoly.
Its not much of a threat, since they can make Office for Mac suck as
much as they want should people start defecting from Windows, even at
the expense of buying a new computer, because it sucked too much. And
it has the added bonus as a facade for claims of 'support for
interoperability'. Kind of laughable, given the current discussion,
though.
Microsoft's intent in developing and maintaining distinct file formats,
as much as possible, is anti-competitive; it is not an efficiency of the
market, as you seem to presume by putting it this way.
[...]
>> That's not a technological argument.
>>
>> That's not even an engineering argument.
>
>It's a market dominance argument.
Well, technically there is a rather important difference between market
dominance and monopolization, you see. And, yes, this contradiction of
technological justification for development which decreases the value of
the product to the consumer is a tell-tale, in fact.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: "The Linux Desktop", by T. Max Devlin
Date: Fri, 19 Jan 2001 23:59:11 +0200
Reply-To: "Ayende Rahien" <Please@don't.spam>
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Well, here we go.
>
> I've got the "Linux Desktop" on order, from a company listed on
> linux.org. Its an 850MHz Athlon with 128 Meg of ram and a 40G ATA 100
> drive. CD-writer, printer, Logitech wheel mouse, PCI modem and a cheap
> Ethernet card; 19 inch monitor. RedHat 7.0, and I paid the extra bucks
> for the Deluxe box.
RH 7.0 ?
On general, you should stay away from RH, and especially from .0 releases.
RH tend to put all sorts of bleeding edge stuff in those things, stuff that
will make you bleed.
Most notable example is gcc in RH 7, I remember that there was some problem
with 5.0, can't recall if there was something of the like in 6.0
> It should be here next week. I didn't get the dual-boot option, but I
> plan to install 95, and maybe NT, once its up and running. So here we
> have a real-world comparison, taking into account and reflecting on the
> monopoly, pre-load, and ease of installation. The Win-whiners aren't
> going to agree, of course, but I think seeing just how easy it is to
> install 95 or NT on a box that has Linux preloaded is going to be very
> instructive. I've said I'd never build a PC from scratch again, and
> would prefer an OEM earned their profit by integrating the system for
> me. But in this case, the exact same hardware is supported by the same
> vendor as a dual-boot option, (can you believe it? an OEM selling
> dual-boot), so I don't think I'm going out on a limb. Plus which, if
> Windows for some reason is too much of a hassle to get up, I'll still
> have a functional system, so that might help eliminate the 'frustration
> and desperation factor' which so badly reflects on the monopoly in the
> typical scenario.
Be sure to have a LILO boot disk around, you'll need it to reinstall LILO
(or your boot manager of choice) on the MBR after you install Windows.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:53:50 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 17 Jan 2001
[...]
>I'm not a RedHat fan. I don't think RedHat is worse than Windows.
>But RedHat and Debian are at extreme opposite ends of the spectrum sir.
How would you characterize the difference, Charlie?
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2001 07:53:51 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 17 Jan 2001 04:55:23
[...]
>People complained how hard dos WAS, it changed. People are complaining how
>hard Linux IS, well...?
Hmmm, a logical conundrum:
Some Windows users complain how hard Linux is.
Some Windows users complain how hard Windows is.
Some Linux users complain how hard Windows is.
No Linux users complain how hard Linux is.
What is the truth?
[...]
>As far as the end user is concerned, it's a 32-bit version of DOS and
>Windows 3.1, with different names, and a UNIX file system.
You mean as far as you are concerned, because that's how you learned to
understand how a computer works? Some might see it as the best parts of
DOS and Windows 3.1, only it doesn't suck from end to end like they did.
Other might see DOS as a clone of CP/M, an archaic copy of the Unix
shell, back before Unix became what Unix is today, and Windows as a
rather sorry knock-off of the Macintosh and X-windows. Others would
call it a Win32 middleware platform used to protect a monopoly on the
OS.
[...]
>> ...and they didn't have to throw away their old software, which was
>> the mistake that Apple made with the high-cost Macintosh (and,
>> Commodore made with the most excellent Amiga -- many C64 users
>> abandoned ship).
>
>As well!
I might have gone for an Amiga, if not for Lotus 1-2-3 and WordStar and
dBase.
>> > Win95 introduced the DirectX multimedia layer, which revoulitionized
>> > PC gaming.
>
>> <pedantic> DirextX didn't come out until well after Windows 95
>
>Witch my sords mor fe, yill wa? Kew ynow mhat I went.
Yes, but you didn't understand what he meant, and you made me work to
find that out. So now you have to read a rant.
DirectX didn't 'introduce' anything whatsoever, and that's a plain
truth. It was a sorry excuse of a graphics systems hastily forced by
any means on developers, used to deter support of a competitive system
which was cross-platform by tying it to lucrative pay-offs to exclude a
threat to the monopoly.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
