Linux-Advocacy Digest #625, Volume #31 Sat, 20 Jan 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistent. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Poor Linux (J Sloan)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 Major Advance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:19:27 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001
[...]
>Assuming one can actually get a connection to the net.
>Read the setup groups for some idea of how many people seem unable to
>accomplish that amazing feat.
Not anywhere near as many as have problems with Windows.
>Secondly the point was that the Linonuts are in such denial around
>here, you mention ugly fonts and they say you are crazy, yet one of
>the chapters from their very gospel of truth ((The How-To's) admits
>the problem, and also admits BTW that this is only a partial solution.
>
>Thirdly why should I have to scour the net looking for ways to make
>Linsux usable. I don't do that with WIndows.
Because that's the price, at the moment, of not being ripped off.
What's so hard to understand about Windows being pathetic quality at
outrageous prices?
>Nope, Linux sux right out of the box and there is simply too much net
>surfing to repair it and make it usable to make it worth my time.
To be honest, Claire, I would say it is rather obvious that nobody gives
a fuck about *your* time. In fact, I think we'd all prefer if you
didn't waste *our* time. That would save *your* time, spent here
moaning and groaning and desperately trying to convince yourself and
others that Windows isn't monopoly crapware, since it scares you to even
contemplate having to learn how to use a computer effectively instead of
continuing to believe in Microsoft's empty promises.
No, repeating it over and over and insisting for years and years and
stamping your foot as mightily as you can will NOT make Windows anything
more than worthless crap that millions of people are forced to use
because of the illegal activities of Microsoft.
--
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: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:19:28 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan
>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 05:04:21 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 01:53:49
[...]
>>>All the "innovations" in the Linux GUI front are coming at the expesne of a
>>>very obvious, underlying problem; functionality. Sure, there are good
>>>looking interfaces, but when things like GNOME programs have no ability to
>>>recognize KDE assoications, and KDE menu's aren't GNOME menu's, and the K
[...]
> Just how many file managers do you plan on using anyways?
Actually, I'd like to use no less than half a dozen, for different
purposes and in different circumstances. But unlike Kyle, I recognize
that it is the market, not my personal preferences, which determine what
gets developed. Hopefully, many other people will soon see the value in
being able to use a variety of file managers, rather than being limited
to one, and then the producers of file managers will begin to worry
about Kyle's issue. An issue which has plagued Windows, of course,
since DOS.
[...]
>>>The X Windowing system has been updated in commercial X servers, why can't
>>>XFree86 catch up? Because it's free? Commercial X servers have substantial
[...]
> Multiheaded is in 4.0,
> a dynamic modular architecture is in 4.0, direct rendered GL is in
> 4.0, and fairly comprehensive hardware autodetection is in 4.0.
[...]
>>>> >And RedHat is just as in tune with they're own bugs, right? So, when RedHat
>>>> >shits on their customers it's Ok?
>>>>
>>>> Oh, heavens yes. Well, with me, anyway, unless I'm a Redhat customer.
>>>> Uh-oh.
>>>
>>>And that's when it hits you...
>>
>>Guffaw. Gotcha. If RedHat shits on me, I'll just go to Debian. Or
>>better yet, Mandrake. :-)
>
> ...or Sun, HP or IBM.
>
> Common standards are nice that way.
Can't beat a free market.
--
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: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:19:30 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001
>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 08:02:30 +0000, Pete Goodwin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>How true. That seems to be ol' jedi's way of not hearing things.
>
>He tries to wear you down by dancing around the subject with cute
>words and phrases, all the time avoiding the the direct question. He
>hopes you will get tired of repeating yourself and go away and thus
>let him off the hook.
>I've had him pinned to the wall several times and it's fun to watch
>him squirm.
Guffaw.
>Example of a typical jedi exchange of words:
>
>Me: So exactly how DO I turn off DAE mode in kscd?
>jedi: DAE mode is simply an application based switch.
>Me: So HOW DO I turn off DAE mode in kscd?
>jedi: The difference between digital and analog is superflous.
>Me: So How Do I turn off DAE mode in kscd?
>jedi: kscd is not Linux.
>Me :So how DO I turn off DAE mode in kscd?
>jedi: You are an idiot.
>
>And on and on.....
I wonder how long it will take before you catch on, quite repeating
yourself, or go away?
--
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: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:19:31 GMT
Said Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> Well, since it isn't the fact that cards are hard to get which indicates
>> that Microchannel was non-standard. It is the fact that only IBM ever
>> produced PCs supporting it which most decisively supports the argument.
>> And absolutely nothing, btw, which refutes it; Microchannel was
>> non-standard. ISA, and possibly VLB(?), was.
>>
>Well, as much as I agree with you on the whole, here you are wrong.
>I know for a fact (because I worked for that company 14 years) that
>Honeywell / Bull produced Microchannel-machines AND boards.
>And they were not the only ones. IBM was NOT alone with MC, although it
>never was any good. The advantages were not good enough in the light of the
>diasadvantages compared to ISA (VLB / EISA). PCI incorporated many of the
>good things of MC.
Thank you for the clarification. I was not aware that so many
manufacturers built MCA computers. Since they were all licensed by IBM,
the point is moot. This was my reason for using the term 'produced'
rather than 'manufactured'. Admittedly, these boxes didn't have the IBM
brand, but they were all licensed by IBM, as Microchannel was
proprietary and owned and controlled entirely by IBM.
--
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: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:19:33 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:16:04
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> I think you make a faulty assumption when you presume that IBM started
>> "the PC industry" as a 'business plan'. Truth is, they did *not*
>> purposefully release the specs to allow a competitive market on an open
>> architecture, though that was, indeed the result.
>
>I'm more than willing to agree that an accident started the ball rolling for
>them. I'm quite sure that, viewing their past business practices, that it
>was indeed not the plan. They certainly knew that they were benefiting from
>that mistake though. The entire PC community was one big advertisement for
>their company. "IBM compatable" - "PC compatable". An entire market niche
>was named for them and their name became synonymous with it.
But you act like IBM didn't resist that with every tool at their
disposal. The worst thing in the world, from IBM's limited perspective
at the time, would be precisely the results which ultimately occurred,
and the PC become a market, rather than a product. It was everyone ELSE
that was advertising 'IBM compatible' (or 'IBM clone', if you know what
the difference is). No, they did not see this as a *benefit*, not by
any means! As far as they could understand, letting slip the BIOS code
and having to publish the architecture (which, being microprocessor
based, is a schematic for how to build a PC) were the *worst* things
that could happen. It took them more than a decade, in fact, to
recognize how they benefitted from it.
Once they did, they started supporting Linux. ;-)
(The preceding statement is knowingly misrepresentative of history.)
><...>
>
>> It was the cloning of the BIOS, not the support of the hardware
>> architecture, which really set the field for the "PC wars". Those wars
>> weren't between IBM and anyone or everyone else, but between those who
>> manufactured *clones* of the IBM PC/XT/AT/etc, and those that
>
>Again, their name plastered all over every aspect of the industry.
Oh, please.
In case you weren't aware, this is called "losing trademark protection".
The term "PC" now means any IBM-compatible personal computer. Suddenly,
they can no longer prevent some other manufacturer from building
anything they want and calling it "a PC". Its now the *markets*
decision whether that's true, not IBM's.
>> manufactured PC *compatibles*. The clones won. So you are right, "it
>> made no difference how good [or how bad] their hardware was." But IBM
>> lost to "the business plan" as much as anyone did. Their attempt to
>> re-propriatize the market with the Microchannel architecture seems to
>> conclusively prove that.
>
>A return to their prior business methodology. THAT was a BIG mistake.
Some of us new that even at the time. IBM surely didn't; that seems
self-evident.
>> Starting the PC market was definitely an 'oops' for IBM. One of those
>> "accidents of history" which tends to make fortunes. Since then, of
>> course, IBM has learned how to take advantage of such occurrences, which
>> is why they are so strong behind Linux.
>
>There's hope for them yet.
Indeed; it might be a great story, some day; IBM's journey from
competitor to monopolist to visionary competitor.
--
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: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:19:35 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 17:47:05
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> You seem to be proposing that a profit-seeking business would be
>> interested in not making more money.
>
>Microsoft had already screwed over Apple with the Windows thing. Apple is
>ALSO in the software game and by most accounts, did it better.
I'm not interested in "the software game", just real world markets and
products. Apple doesn't make many software products; their 'game' is to
sell computers. Most all software products for Macintosh are third
party.
>It was in
>MS's best interest not to support that platform. Apple was a true competitor
>to them.
How could they possibly be a "true" competitor, if they didn't compete
in selling the same kind of product *at all*?
>They had the potential to actually hurt them. (They also had
>incentive too.)
They had the potential to break the monopoly, yes. So did many other
competitive threats. As for incentive, profit seeking firms
unfortunately *don't* have any incentive for acting competitively in the
face of a monopolist. They either act anti-competitively, or they
batten down the hatches and try to ride it out, while actually
minimizing any exposure caused by development or compatibility. It
hurts their customers, of course, but there's no way to prevent that.
Monopolies are already illegal.
>> 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.
>
>Despite the obvious business faux-paus, they got away with it. It made B.G.
>the richest man in the world.
It was illegal. The rest is rather unimportant.
>If supporting and standardizing multiple platforms were, in Microsoft's
>views, advantageous, they would have done it.
Who cares about Microsoft's view? We're consumers, not producers. Stop
being brain-dead. That's the trouble with you Randites; you seem to
think that its OK to get ripped off, as long as you get the chance to
rip someone else off some time.
>Had they started with a technological edge and a decent product, they
>probably could have benifitted by that approach. Neither of those were the
>case.
So its rather hypothetical and even unlikely, now that you mention it,
that they "could have benefitted by that approach".
>>
>> [...]
>> >> That just demonstrates a pattern of total negligence.
>> >
>> >Exactly. Good word for it!
>>
>> Criminal negligence, in this case.
>
>That they're soon to pay for either in a legal sense or market sense.
Both, of course.
[...]
>> 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.
>
>I'm saying that the bet wasn't taken because they were too short-sighted to
>see what would eventually come. Profits tend to make any MBA myopic.
I see. I've tripped over my fanaticism again, haven't I? ;-)
[...]
>> 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 concentrated on supporting platforms that they and they alone could
>dominate.
This is illegal. They're required by the laws of economics to support
the platforms their customers want them to support, and that alone.
Should they 'successfully' resist this, they are no longer in business,
they are now criminal monopolists. As I said, they didn't 'concentrate'
on PC development; they excluded Macintosh development for
anti-competitive (illegal) reasons.
>> they excluded Macintosh
>> development. Because it actually threatens their Windows OS monopoly.
>
>I've said as much above. Actually, if Apple had a good CEO back then, they
>could have had a much larger impact.
More pointless and somewhat ludicrous second-guessing. Regardless of
any putative justification, your statement is a fabrication. Apple had
a good CEO, and did have a large impact. To say "if something were
different, then something might be different" is just pointless
posturing.
>> 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.
>
>Token gestures are a bit laughable. MS ports to that platform, and I get
>this second hand since i'm not a Mac person, were very laughable.
I didn't find them at all humorous, actually. They aren't really
'token' gestures, I don't think. They might be presented as if they
were, but they're more probably carefully planned strategic moves to
prevent competition from threatening their monopoly.
>> 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.
>
>A market with no discernable competition is pretty damned efficient , for
>the monopolists anyway.
Which makes it entirely and completely inefficient as a market. You are
again forgetting that monopolists don't inhabit markets or dominate
markets; they prevent markets.
>>
>> [...]
>> >> 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.
>
>The net result is the same regardless of what words you use to describe it.
Your interpretation of the result is incorrect, regardless of how many
similar words might also describe a correct interpretation.
>A monopolist dominates the market by virtue of exclusive control over it.
>They don't have to concentrate on innovations and actually make their
>products better. This is their weak point too as most monopolies become big,
>bloated and inflexable.
This supposition is unsupported by any facts, I'm afraid. It is the
government, not becoming "big, bloated, and inflexible", that eventually
overcomes monopolists.
>They lose the ability to innovate. The situation is
>a lot like trench warfare in WWI. They fortify their position so that
>crossing no-man's land becomes so dangerous that they're in no danger of
>being extricated. Eventually, someone like the British come along with this
>thing called a "tank" and extricate them...quickly.
You assume their fortifications will ultimately be insufficient for the
very purpose they were erected. That seems a tad naive. You don't need
the ability to innovate unless you are trying to *compete*. To
monopolize, you just need "churn", not innovation, as Microsoft so well
illustrates. So someone coming along and 'innovating' does not have the
result you presume, either in theory or in fact. Your theory is trivial
to refute, as all Objectivist bullshit is. Objectivism is little more
than the purposeful abrogation of the reasonable in glorious celebration
of the rational.
--
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 inconsistent.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:19:37 GMT
Said Ed Allen in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 13:00:51 \
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 15 Jan 2001
>>
>>Do you know the difference between a trademark and a trade name? Do you
>>know if anyone has a trademark on Linux? Is "Mandrake" a brand name, a
>>trademark, or a trade name?
>>
>>Anybody? Anybody?
>>
> Linkname: Welcome to Linux International!
> URL: http://li.org/whatislinux.php
>
> Last line of the page:
> Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds.
>
> =====
> Use of the trademark is encouraged but abuse of it has and will be
> prosecuted in court.
Well, I'm afraid that wouldn't hold up very well, as this usage does
make Linux a 'weak trademark', despite the fact that it is abstract (and
only informative or descriptive for geeks by being similar to 'unix'.)
Not that anyone could make another OS and call it Linux, but you can put
"Linux" all over your own ads and packaging, and the ability for Linus
to stop you from doing that is probably inversely proportional to his
desire. IOW, he couldn't stop you, if for any reason he wanted to.
[...]
>>By 2002, Linux is going to be *everywhere*.
>>
> As the lies M$ tells developers about not having any market if they
> do not write for Windows exclusively are exposed they will rush to
> establish themselves before their competition does.
>
> Think of penguins on the edge of the Antarctic ice with the terror of
> sea lions in the shallow waters just off shore. Once beyond the
> shallows they can outmaneuver the salons but getting there
> requires running the gauntlet and the first few might not make it.
>
> Once the first one takes the plunge the others scramble to get out
> as quickly as possible because the last few are just as vulnerable
> as the first.
You do have a way with words, Ed. ;-)
>>>StarOffice is a perfect example. Do you see it replacing Office? I
>>>don't. Yet StarOffice is free and considering the expense of MS
>>>licensing could result in quite a bit of cost savings for larger
>>>companies, yet I don't see StarOffice taking over desktop's. Why is
>>>that?
>>
>>Because whatever people get to replace Office, it isn't going to be
>>"taking over" desktops. You'll probably never even notice, and nobody
>>else is really going to care. This stupid misrepresentation of 'the
>>network effect' that supposedly makes me give a shit what particular
>>brand of software someone *else* is running is getting fucking tired.
>>
> That is because what most people refer to as "the network effect"
> is just the monopoly refusing to interoperate.
>
> Interoperation would lead to comparison and choice. M$ cannot allow
> that.
Precisely. The ability to build and maintain an applications barrier
never did have anything to do with 'the network effect'.
--
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: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:19:38 GMT
Said Kyle Jacobs in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 20 Jan 2001 07:07:50
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >Microsoft's software is at every computer store in America, Software for
>> >Microsoft's software is at every computer store in America.
>>
>> That's because they're a monopoly, Kyle. It has nothing to do with
>> their popularity or their value.
>
>It did at one time. And that's how it started.
One more time: this is an unsupported conjecture on your part. It
started with things which have nothing to do with market efficiency. In
fact, it is because Bill Gates intended to monopolize all along that
they were able to produce such a crappy product, which was massively
overpriced even while being the least expensive on the menu. No
profit-seeking firm would knowingly produce something so shoddy, lest
they be forced to continue to support it, without even being able to
raise the price to cover the expense. But if you're going to
monopolize, it doesn't matter how crappy the stuff is; you can even just
slap together a clone of a version of a copy that you ripped off of
someone else, and say it is a viable OS. Since no customers are ever
going to get the chance to reject it according to your plans, it doesn't
make much difference, so there's every reason to cut corners and
literally make it as bad as you possibly can.
>> >The consumer has always had a choice, and has always known it.
>>
>> A choice of what? Microsoft software or Apples software is not a
>> choice. A PC with Microsoft software or a PC with someone else's
>> software; that would be a choice. An Apple is not a PC. Why can't you
>> seem to understand that?
>
>Don't tell Apple users this. They will have an anurisim.
Bullshit; they know the difference between a PC and a personal computer.
Only shitheads like you make that mistake. (My apologies, but asinine
comments like that get me pissed off.)
>> >The consumer
>> >has decided on the IBM/PC platform, and therefor has gone with Microsoft
>> >Windows as their OS.
>>
>> MICROSOFT DOES NOT OWN THE PC PLATFORM!!!
>
>They sort of do now. [...]
You 'sort of' have a brain, too. But that's not quite the same thing,
in either case. In other words (since, given that statement, you need
the help, I'm sure) no, they do not own the PC platform, nor are they
legally allowed to control it in any way without breaking the law,
regardless of how they attempt this. And, you don't have a brain. At
least from all appearances, you haven't figured out how to use it, yet,
if you do.
[...remainder blessedly ignored; we've all been through it too many
times...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Poor Linux
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:20:40 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No S/pidf.
Could you explain in tangible terms what this acronym
should do for me?
> Mixer not fully functional.
I see no evidence for that statement.
> No surround sound 4 speakers.
Hmm, well I have 2 speakers, and like most Linux
users, I have only 2 ears.
hmm - I guess I'm like most people, in what I
want from a sound card - I want it to work, I
don't want to spend time futzing around with the
drivers, and I want it to do the right thing with all
the relevant applications.
When I view multimedia content via netscape,
I expect good quality sound, in sync with the
video if any, whether it's real, flash, mpeg, or midi.
When I play tunes on xmms, I expect good
fidelity, without loading the CPU down.
When I play games like quake 3 arena, unreal
tournament, heavy gear II, or soldier of fortune,
I expect good realistic sound effects & music.
The sblive satisfies these criteria, and I'm happy.
Could you explain what I'm supposed to be
unhappy about?
Thanks,
jjs
------------------------------
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: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:24:00 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 20 Jan 2001
>On Sat, 20 Jan 2001 18:36:43 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>
>>What a load of splooge. I do find that its kind of unimportant what a
>>media player *looks like*, as it is a functional program (unless its on
>>Windows, of course), not a piece of art. The only thing that's supposed
>>to 'look good' is the media content, and, of course, Linux trumps
>>Windows entirely and easily, again, on that one.
>
>And EXACTLY the reason why Linux is being ignored on the desktop of
>home users.
We've been over that. Your naive and ingenuous assumption is plainly
wrong. If this were the case, after all, Microsoft wouldn't have to
lose millions of dollars providing sufficient 'discounts' to ensure that
OEMs are still locked in to Windows.
>For goodness sakes you guys actually like using the command line to
>play CD's.
Personally, I prefer using a CD player. But a command line is a much
handier way of controlling a CD player, of course. Just tell the
computer what to do and it does it; no hunting around,
clicky-clicky-clicky. Yuck.
--
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: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 03:26:59 GMT
Said J Sloan in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 21 Jan 2001 01:30:18 GMT;
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> I dunno, ask Microsoft or Winamp. They managed to make their players
>> attractive looking, while xmms looks dreadful, no matter what skin you
>> use.
>
>Well now it's pretty clear why it's called a flatfish -
>It flounders about, making bizarre arguments that fall flat..
LOL!
[...]
--
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
******************************
