Linux-Advocacy Digest #135, Volume #32 Sun, 11 Feb 01 23:13:02 EST
Contents:
Re: The Wintrolls ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (Charlie Ebert)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is awful (T. Max Devlin)
Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
(T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the desktop
(T. Max Devlin)
Re: The Wintrolls (J Sloan)
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Perry Pip)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant ("Jan Johanson")
Re: NTFS Limitations ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:12:02 GMT
On 12 Feb 2001 01:51:45 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking) wrote:
>
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>: No sane person would use Linux on a home desktop system as their
>: primary operating system.
>
>No sane person needlessly wastes huge amounts of money on software. THAT is
>why I use Linux on my home desktop.
1. The programs "I" need to use don't exist on the Linux platform
2. There are plenty of free/shareware programs for Windows that are
far better than the Linux counterparts.
Programs that are not stuck eternally in some 1.0-x version number.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Reply-To: Charlie Ebert:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:28:33 GMT
In article <3a873a62$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>I've been following this so-called Linux hype, and the companies who are
>actually backing it are hoping to use it as a replacement for NT on Medium
>and Low End Servers and once it has matured, on High-End Servers. There
>have only been one or two mainstream hardware vendors actually trying to
>push it into the desktop arena, which, will not happen until serious GUI
>problems are fixed, such as the poor intergration between the GUI, kernel
>and hardware, which, will hopefully be addressed by the end of this year.
>Currently the big push now is towards the server area, once Linux has
>properly established itself in the server arena, then the attention will be
>focused on the desktop front.
>
I'm sorry but I absolutely fail to see why integrating the GUI with
the Kernel MORE would be of any use to anybody.
>As for the artical, SuSE, has a greater following in Europe (esp. in the
>non-english speaking countries), where as Redhat is most dominant in North
>America. SuSE is scaling back their operations to focus on there key areas
>(the areas they have the most success in). Personally, I prefer SuSE Linux,
>however, some people prefer Mandrake or Redhat, hence, you as a consumer
>have choice. I have lived in America before, and the one thing I did
>notice, was that alot of consumers are xenaphobic, un-willing to purchase
>products from overseas, because of some "phobia", where as, "overseas"
>people are quiet happy purchasing items made overseas. Just as a side note,
>it was one hell of a difficult thing trying to get some decent cheese, bread
>and milk, luckly I was able to get it (from a "speciality shop").
>
>Matthew gardiner
>
>"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:95un7e$40a$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/16736.html
>>
>> Staffs cuts in the USA and CEO recosidering business model.
>>
>> --
>> ---
>> Pete
>>
>>
>> Sent via Deja.com
>> http://www.deja.com/
>
>
--
Charlie
**DEBIAN** **GNU**
/ / __ __ __ __ __ __ __
/ /__ / / / \/ / / /_/ / \ \/ /
/_____/ /_/ /_/\__/ /_____/ /_/\_\
http://www.debian.org
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:33:15 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 11 Feb 2001 07:15:50
>"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:M2ph6.19689$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:OLoh6.1188$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > "Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Tom Wilson wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > The very fact that feature is being proposed is enough to conjure
>up
>> > past
>> > > > memories of subscription based software from the early eighties. It
>is
>> > a
>> > > > blatant rip-off and causes your TCO to skyrocket. Actually, i'm
>> > surprised
>> > > > its' taken this long, with the Internet being what it is now, for
>> > someone
>> > > > to seriously pursue such a course again. The consumer sector said
>no,
>> > > > resoundingly, to DIVX and i'm hoping that the commercial sector
>takes
>> > the
>> > > > same tact with this profit mongering.
>> > > >
>> > > > I've heard some of the jucier technical details of .NET and, as a
>> > > > developer, I see the potential. I also see the scenario I just
>ranted
>> > on.
>> > > > We've made the decision not to develop for it and we won't. If it
>takes
>> > > > off, and I don't see it doing so... One of the alternative OS's
>will
>> > just
>> > > > have to be modified to counter it. Be it Linux or BSD.
>> > >
>> > > As I understand it, .NET will be accessible to any OS, it's just that
>> > > Windows tools will be the first down the pike. Of course, that
>> > > common-language substrate will be lowest-common-denominator, and
>> > > Microsoft will change it whenever they see fit, giving developers
>fits.
>> > > It'll be as stable as OLE/COM/COM+/ActiveX/DCOM.....
>> >
>> > As best I can determine it IS OLE/COM/COM+/ActiveX/DCOM. Nothing new.
>Just
>> > a label and more promises with that little subscription wrinkle added.
>>
>> Well, then you really have no idea what you're talking about then.
>> You probably don't know what OLE, COM/ActiveX, DCOM, or COM+ are in the
>
>No, I only program for the above on a daily basis....
>
>> first place, and you certainly don't have the slightest clue what .NET
>> is, as evidenced by the above paragraph.
>>
>> In the future, please refrain from ebarassing yourself by making such
>> ignorant from-the-ass comments as above. At least take the time to read
>> one article, even one paragraph of an article that summarizes .NET before
>> even making a comment on it.
>
>I'm not "ebarassed" in the least.
>(Learn to type)
>
>Also, in the future, don't make wild assumptions about a poster's
>experience level.
>
>PS: It appears I've tread upon a sacred cow of yours. Sorry.
You give Chad too much credit for intelligence, Tom. You gave him an
easy target for his silly rhetoric, that's all. Any discussion of .NET
provides this 'out' for the sock puppets; I'm sure its been discussed
extensively at the sock puppet briefings. The vague and amorphous
definition of '.NET' simultaneously indicates to those who understand
technology that it is nothing so much as a marketing banner and an
attempt at monopolization, while at the same time allowing MSdroids to
play such games whenever they discuss it. The 'don't embarrass
yourself' response from Chief Troll Chad does indicate you've hit the
mark, though.
This will happen whenever you try to dissect a product name for
Microsoft's monopoly crapware; .NET can be described, just as with
Windows, as whatever the old technology is not, even when it is nothing
more than the old technology with a new name. Its handy that nobody but
Microsoft 'has a clue' what it is, as it enables them to pretend it is
whatever they wish it were, rather than dealing with what it is or, more
importantly, what consumers think it is.
--
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.linux,comp.os.linux.x,comp.os.ms-windows,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux is awful
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:33:19 GMT
Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Feb 2001 06:06:13
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Mike Byrns in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Feb 2001 06:30:23
>> >Better than you've ever done :-)
>>
>> How dull.
>
>A fitting retort you your incessant idiocy.
*ZZZZZZZ*
--
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: User Interfaces in the world of Linux...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:33:21 GMT
Said J Sloan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Feb 2001 05:40:04 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Thanks. Sounds as unusable, to me, as focus follows mouse, a feature
>> I've never understood, really. I have noticed its very popular with
>> programmers and admins, but I'm not sure if its because the
>> functionality is more appropriate for their typical tasks, or just
>> because that's the way they got used to back in college when they
>> learned Unix.
>
>To each his own, that's why X windows leaves the
>choice up to you - I prefer focus follows mouse and
>autoraise, I hate having to explicitly click on a window
>to make it active.
I can understand that part; its having to keep the pointer inside the
active window that drives me nuts.
--
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: User Interfaces in the world of Linux...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:33:22 GMT
Said Tim Hanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Feb 2001 06:26:39
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said J Sloan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Feb 2001 00:55:17 GMT;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >
>> >> What is 'sloppy focus'?
>> >
>> >It's like "focus follows mouse" except that the
>> >focus doesn't leave the old window until you
>> >actually move the mouse over a new window.
>> >
>> >in "focus follows mouse" the focus would leave
>> >the old window as soon as the mouse moved
>> >off.
>>
>> Thanks. Sounds as unusable, to me, as focus follows mouse, a feature
>> I've never understood, really. I have noticed its very popular with
>> programmers and admins, but I'm not sure if its because the
>> functionality is more appropriate for their typical tasks, or just
>> because that's the way they got used to back in college when they
>> learned Unix.
>>
>
>I think on virtually all Linux desktops you can choose from a variety of
>behaviors. I have mine set to "focus follows mouse" for my Linux
>system, and of course "click focus" for Windows (no choice). I prefer
>"focus follows mouse," but if I get tired of it I change it. What's the
>big deal?
I never indicated it was a big deal, just something I am a bit curious
about.
--
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: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:33:23 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Feb 2001
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:96542p$ri9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:963qin$i8f$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> In effect MS will control what I can do with MY computer and the OS,
>> >> >> which i gave money for (lots of it, to boot).
>> >>
>> >> > You don't own the OS, you only own the license, even with Linux.
>> >>
>> >> Look, funkybreath, quit talking about linux. Every time you say
>> >> *anything* about linux, you make yourself look like a complete idiot.
>>
>> > Are you stating specifically that you do in fact own the intellectual
>> > property contained in a Linux distribution? That goes against the
>comments
>> > embedded in the source code and against the GPL. The copyright owner
>owns
>> > the software, not the licensee.
>>
>> Im stating that according to the licensing structure, I can do whatever
>the
>> hell I want with it, including sell it for profit. Thats almost exactly
>as
>> good as owning it.
>
>But it's not owning it.
Yes, it is. Adding to the confusion by being inconsistent about what
"it" refers to aside, one owns the software one has purchased. The
intellectual property is not at issue.
>And you can't do "whatever the hell [you] want with
>it". For instance, you can't link it to proprietary code and distribute it,
>nor can you modify it and remove copyrights or the license.
That has nothing to do with anything, but it is the routine response by
those who are trying to obfuscate the concept of copyright in order to
promote illegal monopolization. One can do anything the hell one wants
with it, 'it' being the copy of the software you have purchased. As you
pointed out in a recent post, in fact, Erik, one can even ignore any
restrictions on behavior mandated by the trade secret license agreement,
legally, if such restrictions are contrary to copyright law.
So saying that one cannot break the law, when the discussion isn't about
the law, but the license (which does not rest on copyright law, but on
trade secret law). Switching rapidly back and forth between the two
does often cause enough confusion to sufficiently confound the issues to
the point where you can pretend to support the very law you are
breaking, as Microsoft does, and you seem well practiced at such
intellectually dishonest machinations. But its not like we didn't
already know you're a Microsoft sock puppet.
--
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 and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:33:26 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Feb 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> I hate to horn in on Ed's exchange, and I'm sure he doesn't need the
>> help, but you know I just can't resist...
>>
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 10 Feb 2001
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> IDC only counts vendor acknowledged sales, magazines, books, and
>> >> downloads are extra.
>> >
>> >And how do you know that Red Hat or Mandrake isn't acknowledging those
>> >sales?
>>
>> What makes you think they do? You'll have to support such a conjecture,
>> as the information we have is that they do not. How we know it is true
>> is not at issue, except as an argument from ignorance. How surprising
>> to see you providing an argument from ignorance, Erik.
>
>It was stated that they do not include such sales. I'm asking how they know
>that.
You just provided the answer to your own question. We know it doesn't
because it doesn't. Unless you have some proof that the statement that
it doesn't is incorrect, you are, as I've pointed out, engaging in
nothing more than an argument from ignorance.
>IDC reports whatever Red Hat and whatever companies tell them, which
>very well could include such.
"Could" is not the issue; the question is "does".
>I'm not saying they do or do not include
>them, I'm just asking how they know they're not included. Did Red Hat,
>SUSE, TurboLinux, etc.. post statements saying so?
What would their "posting statements" mean, if the original statement by
IDC isn't enough to convince you?
[...]
>> Proving itself innocent of the blatant anti-trust violations it was
>> accused of didn't seem attractive to the world's richest corporation?
>
>Probably, but Why didn't MS just settle for what Caldera was asking for
>then, instead of waiting for them to come crawling with a pitiful less than
>1% offer?
Again, I think you've answered your own question.
[...]
>> Too bad they can't 'settle' with the government, eh?
>
>According to an article I read in Wired, written by someone with close
>access to both sides and was generally impartial, the government wanted to
>settle. The states wouldn't allow it though. MS even offered up some key
>concessions.
Too bad they can't 'settle' with the government, eh?
[...]
>> Again, since markets can't delay things, but producers can, one would
>> have to ask what evidence you have that it is not MS delaying these
>> things, as Ed seems to be indicating.
>
>The market delays it by not demanding it.
How can the market demand what is not available? You think consumers
can just fantasize what products they want, and they magically appear?
<*snicker*>
>> >Where did you get the idea i'm trying tell OEM's anything? OEM's decide
>> >their own bottom lines, and so far it's not been something that their
>> >customers ask for, or they would provide it.
>>
>> The old 'fait accompli' argument you are so fond of. But it doesn't
>> explain the restrictive licensing preventing OEMs from doing that very
>> thing, mandated by Microsoft. Perhaps you'll jump back into pretending
>> that since, subsequent to Microsoft being convicted of monopolization,
>> OEMs are supporting Linux, they always would have, but for lack of
>> advertising to bring Linux to the attention of the consumer.
>
>Which licensing agreements are those? Specifically. Quote one, or link to
>one.
Sorry, they're all covered by NDAs. I'm sure they covered this in a
couple sock puppet briefings; perhaps you should pay more attention to
your notes.
>> >> Even if you are right about most not being used, how is that
>> >> different from M$ including a traverse the maze game in Excel ?
>> >
>> >Well, for starters, the maze credits take up a small amount of disk space
>> >compared to a full linux installation, second, it doesn't require two
>> >complete configuration steps.
>>
>> Wow! Two whole complete steps? My God, its a wonder anyone's bothering
>> at all, let alone several million people adopting Linux every year.
>
>Installing Windows is one step, Installing Linux another. Why bother with
>both when the customer can specify which he wants?
Profit, nimrod. Counting steps is stupid; do they make money doing it,
and more importantly, *might* they make money doing it if Microsoft's
predatory (and now illegal) contracts didn't prevent them from doing so?
>> >> Or does M$ get an automatic exemption from disk space waste because
>> >> they wrote the bloat into an application ?
>> >
>> >The "bloat" of Office is hundreds of megs and megs of clipart, templates,
>> >samples, and other junk people don't use that often. The applications
>> >themselves are not that big.
>>
>> No, the DLLs themselves are huge; application bloat indicates an
>> excessive number of useless features, more than raw disk space used for
>> such junk as clip art.
>
>And your evidence of this is what? Please, provide hard facts. What is the
>memory footprint of a recent version of Word compared to recent versions of
>it's competitors, WordPro, Abiword, WordPerfect 2000, StarOffice?
Again, memory footprints are not a measure of bloat.
>Hard facts. This should be easy for you to prove.
It is: it is so. Thus, it has been proven to be so. Bloat is a
judgement call, not a "hard fact".
[...]
>> Well, the fact that MS has moved the profiles directory for no purpose
>> (its what the information relates to, not where its stored, that is the
>> problem) is irrelevant, but I'm growing very bored with your quibbling,
>> so I'll leave the rest to Ed's good graces.
>
>Oh, First Ed complains that the profiles are in a place they can be wiped
>out, then you say they were moved for no valid reason. You two should
>really get together and get your stories straight.
What prevents them from getting wiped out in their new location? It is
your supposition alone that this reflects on Ed's comment. He suggested
the idea of having the profiles on a separate partition; you've assumed
that moving them to a separate directory is useful without providing any
valid reason. The underlying presumption which Ed, familiar with more
than just monopoly crapware, probably made was that the location should
be easily configurable, as it is on Unix. Whether MS forces you to put
them one place or another is not a valid response to the question of why
MS forces you to put them any particular place at all.
--
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 and the 21st Century Boom - Re: Wy Linux will/is failing on the
desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:33:31 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 11 Feb 2001
[...]
>You should really think about how your statements erode your position before
>making them.
You should stop with such pathetic posturing, as it radically decreases
my desire to even bother with your lame-ass responses.
Do you and Chad actually have a 'form troll' that MS gives out at the
sock puppet meetings? You both use the same 'tsk-tsk' technique to add
a condescending note to your responses; flathead does it, too. Are we
to suppose that its merely coincidence?
--
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: The Wintrolls
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:45:03 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> 1. The programs "I" need to use don't exist on the Linux platform
Great, so use what you like -
> 2. There are plenty of free/shareware programs for Windows that are
> far better than the Linux counterparts.
Generally speaking, windows has shareware, Linux
has freeware. While I disagree with your view, I can
see how one could form that view given the huge
head start that microsoft is now squandering.
I prefer Linux, and I've voted with my wallet,
If you like windows better, go use it, and have
a nice life. But you can't really do that because
despite all your protests, Linux facinates you.
Why else would you spend all your spare time
trolling on the linux advocacy newsgroup?
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: 12 Feb 2001 03:51:50 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 19:00:36 +0000,
pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Jan Johanson wrote:
>> [lots of stuff that is not worth any time commenting on snipped]
>>
>> Anyone suggesting Linux is making inroads at the (successful) enterprise
>> level is just plain nutz...
>
>F.U.D.
>
>Is someone paying these people?
Get real. Some people at MS may be stupid. But none are stupid enough
to hire morons like this.
Most of the Wintrolls on this NG are wanna-be's who are tricked into
thinking they actually know something about computing because they can
handle the "advanced" dialogs in MS Windows. So whenever they hear
there's more to know about computing they have to passionately
discredit it.
Perry
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 03:55:06 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 11 Feb 2001 18:21:13
[...]
>> I'm not "ebarassed" in the least.
>> (Learn to type)
>
>It is considered rude to point out every little spelling error made
>in someones post, unless it's obvious that that person doesn't really
>know how to spell. Yes, I know how to spell, and yes, it's rude you're
>pointing out every little error.
Its offensive to be a troll. Yes, we know you are a troll, and yes you
are offensive.
>I will be certain to point out EVERY SINGLE spelling error you make
>from now on and be sure to point out how ignorant your are for making
>them.
>
>> Also, in the future, don't make wild assumptions about a poster's
>> experience level.
>
>It wasn't a wild assumption. When you make a claim that .NET is just
>like COM, then you really have no clue what you're talking about.
Only if you haven't a clue what he was talking about. Everyone but the
sock puppets understood his expression; why is it so hard for you to
grasp?
>> PS: It appears I've tread upon a sacred cow of yours. Sorry.
>
>Pet peeve, really. I'm sick and tired of you idiots belittling .NET
>when you really have no clue AT ALL what you're talking about.
Why? Would it really matter if we knew the technical details of
Microsoft's newest ploy to bilk money from captive consumers? I mean,
even if your unfounded and untrue presumption that we don't were true?
>Perhaps you should read just a LITTLE and then attempt to talk
>intelligently about it. Until then, please refrain from speaking
>from your ass.
You *are* an ass, Chad. :-)
You again forget that having a calm tone is not enough; your words have
to be true, as well, and you're far too dishonest to be bothered with.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Win2K - Minuses outweigh plusses
Date: 11 Feb 2001 22:02:53 -0600
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
>
> > Look - the point is, here is an insanely inaccurate piece of crap being
> > labeled as such and the author appropriate ridiculed for presenting such
> > obvious crap as fact. Why would you defend such obvious lies? Even a
linux
> > user should be able to recognize obvious flaws in the bogus story...
>
> If he had such problems, why shout him down?
>
> It would seem reasonable and obvious to consider
> that the man was simply relating his experiences, but
> you immediately and predictably accuse him of lying.
>
> Why are you so threatened by the idea that someone
> might have problems installing windows?
because he describes an obvoiusly faked scenario. It's not hard to see this.
If I began by describing my linux installation failure by saying that after
I booted a MS-DOS disk in order to run the linux setup utility you'd know
something was amiss. Same thing here...
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: 11 Feb 2001 22:05:10 -0600
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Jan Johanson wrote:
> > [lots of stuff that is not worth any time commenting on snipped]
> >
> > Anyone suggesting Linux is making inroads at the (successful) enterprise
> > level is just plain nutz...
>
> F.U.D.
>
I have another short one for you:
D.E.N.I.A.L.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Date: 12 Feb 2001 04:06:54 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> The point is .NET is nothing new.
> Multiple language common runtime? Please point me to a URL where
> I can see where this has been done in the past.
www.python.org
Of course, you're going to have to understand some of the details of
python in order to understand its relevancy to this topic.
=====.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
