Linux-Advocacy Digest #131, Volume #32 Sun, 11 Feb 01 20:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (ZnU)
Re: Answer this if you can... ("Matthew Gardiner")
Re: Peformance Test ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Does Code Decay (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Does Code Decay (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Does Code Decay (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Linux reference distro (J Sloan)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,rec.games.frp.dnd
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:52:03 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:36:44 GMT, ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > > On Tue, 06 Feb 2001 08:49:01 GMT, G3 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], J Sloan at
> > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 2/6/01 12:05 AM:
> > > >
> > > > > I dunno, I prefer my Helix gnome desktop to anything I've
> > > > > seen from microsoft - and I see windows nt and win 2k every
> > > > > day.
> > > >
> > > > Why do all you unix saps compare yourselves to one of the
> > > > shittiest GUI's on earth?
> > > >
> > > > I use Mac OS, and the OS X beta. Both have interfaces that
> > > > crush anything available on X Windows, or anything that ever
> > > > came out of redmond.
> > >
> > > As a beta, OSX hasn't shown itself to be anything more than
> > > glitz, the usual Mac style of form over function - Gates' quote
> > > in reverse, make it look good then everyone will assume it IS
> > > good. All I've ever seen quoted about OSX is how wonderful Aqua
> > > is.
> >
> > Quoted where?
>
> This newsgroup, amongst others.
>
> Or try PC-Pro Feb 2001 "Advanced Windows" P260:-
>
> "To be honest, I don't know why Redmond is concerned since OSX is
> turning out to be the ultimate expression of "wrapping over content",
> far from ready to be a beta and with lots of its capabilities badly
> broken. It saddens me to see how little real work has been applied to
> it since the days of NeXTStep, which forms the core of OSX. And I
> know I'm not alone in finding its UI desktop to suffer from a nasty
> case of "Opaque Designer Chic".
You claimed that _all_ the quotes you've ever seen have focused on Aqua.
Clearly, posting a single quote doesn't prove that. I explained in my
previous response why _many_ quotes focus on Aqua.
> > You expect newspaper columnists to play with a Terminal window and
> > rave about the BSD layer or NetInfo? Aqua is the most visible and
> > the most distinguishing feature of OS X. Users spend the entire day
> > interacting with it. A Unix CLI is massively useful to some, but
> > it's of no relevance to most users and it's old news. Of course
> > Aqua gets the bulk of the attention!
> >
> > If you look in the right places,
>
> Hmmm. If you look in the right places you'll always find what you
> want to find...
Your claim that Aqua is the only OS X component anyone ever talks about
is a nice example of that.
> <...>
>
> > > And clicking on a drive opens up a box anywhere at random on the
> > > desktop, click again and another randomly placed box appears, and
> > > so on.
> >
> > By default, clicking opens a window where you last opened it.
> > Clicking again opens the new directory in the same window.
>
> Opens a new window IME. Until you're knee deep in them.
We're talking about Mac OS X, which you apparently haven't used.
> > > Geez, what a daft system.
> >
> > It would be, if it worked anything like your description. Good
> > thing it doesn't.
>
> Any Mac I've used has worked this way. OK maybe there's a setting
> somewhere to change it but that's the way most people including Mac
> devotees seem to like it. And since they aren't my machines, I leave
> them the way the Macites set them up.
No Mac you've used has worked the way you described. Yes, Mac OS 9 will
spawn a new window when you open a directory, but it doesn't open it in
a random place, as you claimed it did. I notice you removed my response
to that statement.
> And sometimes windows straddle the two monitors,
If you put them that way.
> useful that, but Windoze does it too. And Xinerama also, unless you
> use Xinerama aware WMs like Enlightenment.
>
> <...>
>
> > > MacOS hasn't had much thought applied to it since 1984, just
> > > glitz. It's still on a par with Windows 3.x
> >
> > This has to be one of the most stupid comments I've ever seen.
>
> Jobs and Scully (?) were too busy fighting each other to notice
> others passing them on the inside.
>
> Let's see.
>
> CMT, like Win3.x
>
> Poor memory management, such that you have to allocate memory
> manually (maybe fixed in OS9, but certainly present in OS8). Worse,
> by a long shot, than Win3.x
>
> Stupid things like locking the machine up when you put in a floppy,
> ok I know it's mounting it, but does the whole machine need to grind
> to a halt while it does it? Even stops playing music from the CD
> drive while it's mounting. Geez.
>
> Etc.
I'm talking about user interface, which you clearly dismiss above as
"just glitz."
> > At the very least, it demonstrates you have absolutely no clue
> > about user interface.
>
> How do you work that out?
>
> User interface is important, yes, but if your OS is 5-10 years out of
> date the best UI in the world isn't much use. Like a Ferrari with a
> Trabant engine, it'll go, but not as well as the wrapping would
> suggest.
This is, of course, total nonsense. The typical user benefits much more
from a good user interface than from something like preemptive
multitasking. Please note, I don't say this applies to _all_ users.
> Anyway, there's not a lot of difference between the UIs of MacOS,
> Windoze and KDE2. The basic metaphors are the same - else why did
> Apple sue Microsoft over "look and feel"? Place a newbie in front of
> each and there won't be a lot of difference in productivity. KDE will
> probably come out on top since single clicking is far more intuitive
> than double clicking.
Bah. Never mind. It's impossible to discuss user interface with someone
who can't see the difference between KDE and Mac OS. Sure they both have
menus and icons. A Kia and a BMW both have wheels and engines....
> > > > Yeah but the X Windows GUI tools SUCK.
> > >
> > > Why do they suck? Let's have a reason better than "they look
> > > bad".
> >
> > X-based GUIs aren't even on par with Windows yet. First off, the
> > Unix world needs to standardize on a single UI toolkit, so the user
> > can be sure menus work the same way between programs and can
> > actually copy and paste correctly. Once you've got such basic
> > things taken care of, ask again.
>
> Try KDE2. Consistent UI here.
Sure, if I only use KDE2 apps, which dramatically limits my already very
restricted choices.
> And 90% of Linux apps can paste with the middle mouse button, even
> between apps. And not just in X.
90% is pretty bad. And how about styled text? Bitmaps? Vector graphics?
Movie clips? 3D? Can I copy and paste those between apps yet? How about
drag-and-drop?
> The Gimp has a unique UI, but 5 minutes work and it becomes second
> nature. Right click in the image you want to adjust and the image
> manipulation menu appears. No desktop space wasted with menus and
> certainly better than Macs' single menu for all open apps. Dragging a
> mouse from bottom right on the right hand 21" monitor to top left of
> the left hand 21" monitor *every* *single* *time* can get physically
> and mentally exhausting after a while. I guess there's a key-binding
> for it somewhere...
If it's getting exhausting, it's probably in your head. The Mac has a
little thing called mouse acceleration, and hitting the top of the
screen is very, very easy, since you can't overshoot. I find Gimp's UI
awkward and inconsistent (although in Linux there's nothing to be
consistent with). It's certainly no Photoshop.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
------------------------------
From: "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Answer this if you can...
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:52:38 GMT
If you donot like Linux, don't use it, simple as that. If you don't like
Windows, use another OS, like BeOS, QNX RTP or buy a Mac w/ MacOS X.
Matthew Gardiner
"John Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <Tirade>
>
> Now please don't get me wrong, I WANT to like Linux, I want to tell
> everyone how good it is, that they are silly to stay with Windows,
> that Linux is faster and better, but...
>
> I have been using Linux off and on for about three years. Every now
> and again I get the urge to use it constantly and at first find it
> wonderful and open and fast and non-Windows, but then comes the
> STOPPER.
>
> <Examples>
>
> I install some RPM package or other and at the end of the
> install...NOTHING... where is the bloody thing? How do I start it?
> Where is the new menu entry. Nuffin' doing kid. Now for some REAL fun
> 'find -i / -iname mozilla' . and then work out if it's a binary or
> script. If it's a script then './blahblah' . Yes, you arrogant
> bastard, I know Linux is so bloody clever that this will stop baddies
> usurping . and so on. But it doesn't make anyone actually want to use
> Linux instead of Windows, does it?
>
> I want to copy a line of text from my xterm window (or browser window)
> to another app ... forget it! EVERY Windows app can cut & paste to
> another app, why not Linux? This is CRIMINAL!
>
> I can't get the delete key to delete the character to the RIGHT of the
> insertion cursor in X. (Please don't even try to tell me that
> 'historic' reasons related to teletypes and punched tape have any
> rele-vance to today). In spite of almost a whole day spent reading
> HOWTO's and searching Google et al, if I enter <ctrl>-v then the
> 'delete' key is STILL COMES BACK WITH '^?' INSTEAD OF '[[3~' although
> outside of X it works fine. That I should even have to know such
> arcane crap in 2001 is a total mystery to me.
>
> </Examples>
>
> I now understand that there really is a good reason why Microsoft
> spends so much effort on usability labs and such. Why do I seem always
> to have to fight Linux. Why doesn't it even TRY to help me? The
> arrogant attitude of some Linux 'gurus' is really childish..."REAL
> programmers enjoy wasting whole days trying to get Delete and
> Backspace working in all apps."
>
> For all the 'holier than thou' attitude of so many Linux advocates,
> Linux is simply 'spaghetti code' gone wild. Has no one in the Linux
> community read Parnas (1972) "On the Criteria to be used Decom-posing
> Systems into Modules?" If so, then why are whole web sites devoted to
> trying to help poor idi-ots like myself get the bloody 'delete' key to
> delete the character to the right of the insertion cur-sor? Have you
> lot never heard of encapsulation?
>
> If Linux was a half-decent system there would only be ONE place to set
> key mappings, but oh no 'its sooo flexible, you can set the key
> mappings in round about 10 to 20 different places', wow! That's really
> cool!
>
> If a programmer of mine put such a 'solution' to me I would think
> seriously of firing him/her.
> </tirade>
>
> ;-)
>
> John Muir
>
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Peformance Test
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:01:48 -0600
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Who cares? Using NT for embedded applications, particularly ones built
> around low-end hardware and without a GUI, is silly. You get nothing
> for your trouble compared with less costly solutions.
We did indeed get something for our trouble. We didn't have to rewrite a
million lines of our application. The cost savings in that far outweigh the
added cost of the OS, particularly when we only less than 1000 CNC machines
a year.
> >2. What would be the benefit over just using Linux?
>
> None at all. You get to pay for the OS, the "target designer" thingy,
> and the development environment. Then you pay per-copy royalties on the
> OS (and perhaps on other bits) for every gadget that you ship. And when
> you're all done it takes more memory and performs worse.
And in our case, costed less than 1/3 of rewriting it for a "free" OS.
> The only benefit I can see is if MS pays you to use their stuff in order
> to provide an "design win" to point to for marketing purposes.
You clearly don't have much imagination, do you?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:34:42 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:18:27 -0500...
...and Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
> >
> > It was the Fri, 09 Feb 2001 16:40:58 -0500...
> > ...and Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [plutonium fission bomb]
> > > You don't even need that... We're talking about something the size of
> > > a softball. You can merely make a sphere with a cylinder hollowed out
> > > of it...and a matching cylinder which drops (by gravity) into the
> > > hollowed-out space. Then make a time-delay device that gives you a
> > > two-hour delay.
> >
> > ROTFLMAO.
> >
> > You think that letting a piece of plutonium drop into a subcritical
> > mass *by gravity* will give you an explosive chain reaction? Pretty
> > naive.
>
>
> IF the combine mass of the two pieces exceeds critical mass, then
> yes...that's all you need.....
>
>
> ...by definition.
No. There have been critical-mass accidents at nuclear waste treatment
facilites (nearly every facility of that kind has experienced at least
one such accident).
Surprisingly, none of the facilities have gone up in a mushroom cloud
;)
mawa
--
Zurücklächler!
Zungenkussverweigerer!
Zeltfeger!
Zweiweckersteller!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:39:30 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:19:56 -0500...
...and Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >You think that letting a piece of plutonium drop into a subcritical
> > >mass *by gravity* will give you an explosive chain reaction? Pretty
> > >naive.
> > >
> > yeah, trying this with plutonium will simply result in a fizzle,
> > the reaction will ramp up slowly enough that the heat produced
> > will disperse the plutonium, thus dropping it below critical mass.
> > You need the pellet of Pu to to go in the cavity at a great rate
> > of speed. One of (I think it was the Nagasaki bomb) was a gun-type
> > device, but used U238.
(U-235, to be correct; 238 is natural uranium and will only work as,
for example, a tertiary stage in the usual fission-fusion-fission
bombs.)
> > The Pu bomb, was an implosion type.
> >
>
> Those bombs were NOT pressure-assisted.
Wrong. Fat Man *was* pressure-assisted as it was an implosion-type
bomb.
> The only purpose for the explosives was to make sure that the
> sub-critical mass elements were properly pushed together so that
> they would exceed critical mass.
No. Their purpose was to make sure that the sub-critical mass elements
were compressed into one critical mass that rested together in one
piece despite of the energy that was ramping up inside.
As long as the pressure generated by the gunshot or the implosion was
not completely balanced by the pressure generated from the increasing
heat inside, the bombs continued to yield energy. The moment the
density of the fissile block dropped below the initial density, the
chain reaction stopped.
The higher the initial compression is, the longer the reaction will
run and the higher the relative yield.
mawa
--
Zurücklächler!
Zungenkussverweigerer!
Zeltfeger!
Zweiweckersteller!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Does Code Decay
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:33:28 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:25:07 -0500...
...and Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matthias Warkus wrote:
> >
> > It was the Fri, 09 Feb 2001 16:43:28 -0500...
> > ...and Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Get enough fissionable material, and you merely have to drop plug-B
> > > into hollowed-out-part-A, and the thing goes off...in a foolproof
> > > manner.
> >
> > And in a pretty useless manner, as the triggered chain reaction will
> > be rather weak and end as soon as the mass has molten or such.
> >
> > Yeah, it'll surely produce some cool blue light and a lot of
> > radiation. But no explosion.
>
> If you have critical mass, it will explode.
>
> That's the DEFINITION of critical mass.
No. You're wrong.
The definition of critical mass for a certain mixture of fissile mass
in a certain environment is simply that mass where there is, in
average, more than one secondary neutron generated from every primary
neutron, which will lead the neutron flux to ramp up, but not
necessarily to explosion.
At the Manhattan Project, they had a bench where two U-235 hemispheres
were mounted at a certain distance. A scientist did critical-mass
experiments there, approaching one hemisphere to the other by slowly
turning a screw. One day, an accident happened, and the hemispheres
touched.
If a nuclear explosion had happened in that moment, the world would
know it as it would have destroyed about one third of all the
weapon-grade fissile material available in the world at that time ;).
In reality, the result was just a blue flash, lots of radiation, and a
severely burnt scientist.
mawa
--
Stand at ease.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux reference distro
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 00:56:25 GMT
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > I've been running 7.0 on several boxes and not a
> > hint of trouble in sight, but a number of labor reducing
> > enhancements.
>
> You're going to sit there and tell me you're not the least bit aware of all
> the issues surrounding Red Hat 7?
Much ado about nothing - a tempest in a teapot, if you will.
The issues were political, not technical - and knowing that
is the difference between someone who actually uses it and
someone who merely passes along clever sounding rumors.
> You're not aware that Linux has stated
> categorically that RH7 is severely broken?
I'm pretty sure that was an Andy Kaufmann style psych.
Mr T has a very unusual sense of humor, and it goes
over the heads of a lot of people.
Aside from repeating what you've heard, what problems
do you actually see in Red Hat 7?
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:05:05 -0600
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a869982$0$23109@reader4...
> Erik,
>
> I see you are arguing semantics with Max again, while completely
> ignoring my post giving you proof of Microsofts OEM licensing
> practices. Honestly, your debating style breaks so many laws of
> rhetoric, that arguing with you is just not fun anymore, you're
> just too easy a target.
You should read all the messages in a thread before making comments like
this. It only makes you look impatient and stupid.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:08:31 -0600
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a869b66$0$18911@reader5...
> In article <BHwh6.238$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:3a869379$0$20233@reader3...
> >> In article <UGph6.45$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Erik
> >> Funkenbusch"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> <snip some stuff>
> >> > Which licensing agreements are those? Specifically. Quote
> >> > one, or link to one.
> >> <snip some more>
> >> Erik,
> >>
> >> For your convenience:
> >>
> >> http://usvms.gpo.gov/ms-findings2.html
> >>
> >> You just put your foot in your mouth again.
> >
> > Sorry, this document lists no evidence of MS preventing an OEM
> > from installing a dual boot system with two operating systems.
> > Care to point out the specific paragraph?
> >
> > Perhaps you should understand what the subject is before you go
> > making such statements.
> >
> >
> >
> Ok,
>
> Here is the relevant snippet:
>
> 213. In an effort to thwart the practice of OEM customization,
> Microsoft began, in the spring of 1996, to force OEMs to accept a
> series of restrictions on their ability to reconfigure the
> Windows 95 desktop and boot sequence. There were five such
> restrictions, which were manifested either as amendments to
> existing Windows 95 licenses or as terms in new Windows 98
> licenses. First, Microsoft formalized the prohibition against
> removing any icons, folders, or AStart@ menu entries that
> Microsoft itself had placed on the Windows desktop. Second,
> Microsoft prohibited OEMs from modifying the initial Windows boot
> sequence. Third, Microsoft prohibited OEMs from installing
> programs, including alternatives to the Windows desktop user
> interface, which would launch automatically upon completion of
> the initial Windows boot sequence. Fourth, Microsoft prohibited
> OEMs from adding icons or folders to the Windows desktop that
> were not similar in size and shape to icons supplied by
> Microsoft. Finally, when Microsoft later released the Active
> Desktop as part of Internet Explorer 4.0, it added the
> restriction that OEMs were not to use that feature to display
> third-party brands.
>
> 214. The several OEMs that in the aggregate represented over
> ninety percent of Intel-compatible PC sales believed that the new
> restrictions would make their PC systems more difficult and more
> confusing to use, and thus less acceptable to consumers. They
> also anticipated that the restrictions would increase product
> returns and support costs and generally lower the value of their
> machines. Those OEMs that had already spent millions of dollars
> developing and implementing tutorial and registration programs
> and/or automatically-loading graphical interfaces in the Windows
> boot sequence lamented that their investment would, as a result
> of Microsoft= s policy, be largely wasted. Gateway,
> Hewlett-Packard, and IBM communicated their opposition forcefully
> and urged Microsoft to lift the restrictions. Emblematic of the
> reaction among large OEMs was a letter that the manager of
> research and development at Hewlett-Packard sent to Microsoft in
> March 1997. He wrote:
>
> Microsoft=s mandated removal of all OEM boot-sequence and
> auto-start programs for OEM licensed systems has resulted in
> significant and costly problems for the HP-Pavilion line of
> retail PC=s.
>
>
> Satisfied? Really Erik, you should think twice before challenging
> someone.
Not even close. All you've mentioned was the Initial boot sequence. This
is what happens *AFTER* windows has started loading, not before it. Adding
a dual boot would not interfere with the windows boot sequence as defined by
MS.
You should understand what you're quoting before you jump to conclusions on
it.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:09:54 -0600
"Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:3a869c1e$0$20238@reader3...
> For the record,
>
> I refer to the sentences prohibiting modification of the boot
> sequence, I think there's a whole bit of prohibition on
> including dual-boot altOS's a little further on, but you get my
> drift.
No, you don't understand what text is referring to. The restrictions were
put into place to prevent OEM's from inserting their own startup programs
and shells into the windows boot sequence, which begins at the "Starting
Windows..." message. There is nothing in the FoF that refer to dual boots
or prohibiting multiple OS's. Period.
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:46:04 +0100
Chad Myers wrote:
> The truth is, people aren't buying Linux in the stores in mass
> quantities. Sales are rediculously low compared with all the other
> software on all the other shelves.
>
Sure, that must have been the cause why the stacks of SuSE 7.1 were
not visible in the store saturday (in germany it started then). When I asked
the friendly salespeople if they still got some copies left they got a new
stack of 10 boxes and told me it would probably just be enough for half an
hour, they were selling it like mad (this was the more expensive pro-version
consisting of 7 CDs and 1 DVD). This was NOT a computer store. It was the
computer-compartement of a bookstore.
Yeah, all those people bought it (not the much cheaper personal version)
to play with it and give it to a friend.
Yeah, sounds about right.
Sounds like Chad is back, without getting his medicine and
proper treatment before.
Peter
--
begin I-LOVE-WINDOWS.txt.vbs
http://www.klickibunti.org/buntibunti.html
Society against GUI Domination
end
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:57:19 +0100
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> Don't know about Europe, but in Amerika there's this "business software
> association" whereby whistle blowers (disgruntled employees who prefer not
> to go on shooting rampages) call in and the group sends out stormtroopers
> to audit the software licenses. If the company has a lot of warez, the
> copyright fines can be enough to nuke the company. In this way, a company
> with a lot of warez is vunerable to a disgruntled employee EVEN IF THEY
> HAVE METAL DETECTORS TO PREVENT SHOOTING RAMPAGES.
>
Same in Europe, although I`m only sure of germany. But there it`s the same
thing. And I`ve heard of similar things in other european countries.
I think, if MS really pulls a stunt like that, they will be in for a rather
nasty surprise.
You can fool some people all the time
You can fool most of the people most of the time
You can NOT fool all the people at all.
MS will have to learn that not everyone outside of Redmond
is dumb enough to believe their BS everytime.
--
Are you sure you REALLY want to read this with Netscape?
[ ] YES Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] NO Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] LOCK UP Crash Windows and soft reboot
[ ] BSOD Crash Windows and hard reboot
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
