Linux-Advocacy Digest #152, Volume #32 Mon, 12 Feb 01 15:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: The Wintrolls ("Deepak Chandrashekar")
Re: Laptop and linux. Which one??? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Laptop and linux. Which one??? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Run for the hills! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: The Double Fucking ala MS... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone? (Richard Kimber)
Re: Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone?
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Re: The Wintrolls
Re: Answer this if you can... (John Muir)
Re: Help with LILO ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Answer this if you can... (John Muir)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Deepak Chandrashekar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:11:26 -0000
I think this thread is 100% pure unadultrated bullshit.
Everyone knows that Windowzblowz is complete crap
when it comes to robustness and uptime !!
So if is for such apps. then go get Linux/Unix or something.
Else, if u want to use some "kiddie" application such as MS-Word
then .......
============================>>>>>
I dont want to pay M$ Tax
<<<<<---------------------------
Deepak
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Laptop and linux. Which one???
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:11:40 GMT
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:30:55 GMT, "Matthew Gardiner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Why is it that the largest expansion ATT could do was to include Japan in
>there network...for a multi-billion company, its pretty pathetic. They
>mustn't want to make any money with that sort of attitude.
I have no idea, why don't you ask them?
I'm happy with their ISP service.
>Ring up IBM and ask..Jesus thats why there is fucking sales staff on.
Try calling IBM about a Linux problem and see what happens.
>> BTW is Diablo II out for Linux yet?
>Don't play it. I have WORK TO DO, I do not play games and twiddle my
>thumbs. I read, play music, go to products at the local theatre and
>actually socialise, unlike you, who probably has never been outside, let
>alone have contact with another human.
Dountful if you are running Linux., "The OS that consumes the
Consumer's time."
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Laptop and linux. Which one???
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:12:26 GMT
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 12:18:48 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
Ebert) wrote:
>
>Do I really need to say more....
More than what?
You haven't said anything.
In fact, you never say anything.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Run for the hills!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:15:03 GMT
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:55:17 GMT, "Matthew Gardiner"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Well, my dick is faster and better than Windows. Could you please smack it
>;)
>
>Matthew Gardiner
You "socializing again"? :)
Sorry couldn't resist :)
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: The Double Fucking ala MS...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:17:19 GMT
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:58:12 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie
Ebert) wrote:
>For 9 months I've been hearing, "YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR, THAT'S
>WHY LINUX SUCKS" from this man.
With Linux you get what you DON'T pay for.
I don't mind paying for quality applications, I just don't want
software companies peering into my business.
I buy it, register it and use it and that is the end of it.
I'll switch to Mac if they start this spyware crap.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: Richard Kimber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone?
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:23:13 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 3. OK, let's try a format / partition and clean install... I get a choice
> of installing packages from minimal (300MB) to ALL, which states 800MB,
> which sounds rather small as my 7.1 install was over 2GB. Anyway I go
> ahead and install everything I could choose. I get the system up and
> running. But then I find out it is pretty useless:
>
> Things missing from a full install (all packages) of Mandrake 7.2
> COMPLETE: - no C++ libraries, headers or compiler
> - no gcc installed - WHAT? Full linux without gcc ???
> - no telnet, ftp, nfs servers
> - no cvs
> - no nslookup
..
>
> In conclusion: Mandrake 7.2 provides a very flashy install and boot
> system, doesn't ask any questions about the hardware (autodetected
> everything fine) and installs a desktop system which is fine for general
> office usage and web browsing. BUT, it does not have even basic
> development and server tools necessary for a LAN. So, it is a perfect
> replacement for windoze - home users welcome to the linux community!
> On the other hand, old timer developers like me should stay away from it!
>
> Is this a new trend or I just picked the wrong distribution ?
No, you just installed it wrongly. I've recently installed 7.2 and have
not had these problems. IMHO the best option is to choose the 'developer'
installation and then choose exactly which packages you want installed. It
takes a while to trawl through the list, but it's worth it. You could of
course choose the 'expert' installation option if you really know what
you're doing. There is also a 'server' package. These categories are
somewhat arbitrary - that's why I select individual packages.
- Richard.
--
Richard Kimber
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.setup
Subject: Re: Downgrading to Mandrake 7.2 - did Linux become a windoze clone?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:28:10 GMT
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:45:38 GMT, Zsolt Zsoldos
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>I was an enthusiastic linux user for the past 5 years, but now Mandrake 7.2
>got me really frustrated, so that I have to tell you about it...
>
>First a bit of historical background about me and Linux:
>I started using Linux in 1996 with Slackware (prior to that I was a Unix
This is what some of us have been complaining about for weeks with
respect to Mandrake 7.2.
The install process has a mind of it's own and subsequent installs on
fresh hard disks produce different results.
You are fortunate in that you have the experience to know how to
repair the install.
I am not and I doubt a newbie would spend that much time trying to
make it work properly.
FWIW I had the Official Deluxe/Complete boxed version of Mandrake 7.2.
Flatfish
Why do they call it a flatfish?
Remove the ++++ to reply.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 Feb 2001 05:15:55 +1100
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>But you are the exception to the norm. Even if there were a
>thousand people like you, it still so insignificant as to be
>almost not worth talking about. Less than one percent of one percent
>or something like that.
If a thousand people were less than one percent of one percent, then the
total sample size would have to be larger than 10 million.
Nice own goal, Chad :)
Bernie
--
Love is not just looking at each other, it's looking in the same
direction
Antoine de SaintExupery
Wind, Sand and Stars, 1939
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 13 Feb 2001 05:18:53 +1100
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>Except on Windows, all the applications I've used all seem to work. None of
>them spew forth postscript on my printer. I've not seen that kind of error
>on Windows for a _long_ time.
Which brings up one of my pet peeves --- how *do* you print a postscript file
to a postscript printer under Windows? Note: Under *Windows*. Not under DOS.
Bernie
--
Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible
Lord Kelvin
president, Royal Society
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:45:10 +0100
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lars Träger wrote:
> >
> > Peter Seebach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >12x ATAPI CD-ROM not detected???
> > > >I'm not buying THAT load of horse-shit either,
> > >
> > > Then you're forgetting one of the most common PC Unix problems; most
> > > Unix-like systems politely ignore incorrectly jumpered drives - say, a
> > > slave device on a channel with no master device.
> >
> > You are assuming that Kookis knows anything about what he is talking
> > about - he doesn't. He had a few too many grenades explode in close
> > proximity.
> >
> > Lars T.
>
> DUMBASS IDIOT did NOT correctly configure his EASY-AS-PIE
> ATAPI CD-ROM...and he's blaming the problem on Linux, rather than his
> own incompetance.
>
> This has ZERO to do with grenade explosions.
See what I mean? He's just like the NTrolls, absolutly no help, blaming
it all on the user.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:51:21 GMT
On 13 Feb 2001 05:18:53 +1100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>Except on Windows, all the applications I've used all seem to work. None of
>>them spew forth postscript on my printer. I've not seen that kind of error
>>on Windows for a _long_ time.
>
>Which brings up one of my pet peeves --- how *do* you print a postscript file
>to a postscript printer under Windows? Note: Under *Windows*. Not under DOS.
Use ghostscript. Goofy, huh? (convert PS to a bitmap and then back to PS)
I guess you could create a plain text print driver and send it unadulterated.
--
Remove 'wakawaka' and 'invalid' to e-mail me. You can thank spammers for this
inconvenience.
I didn't do it! Nobody saw anything! You can't prove anything! -- bart
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: The Wintrolls
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:54:05 GMT
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 11:32:43 +0100, Karel Jansens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Donn Miller wrote:
>>
>>
>> Microsoft has been known to ship software before all the bugs were worked
>> out just to make a deadline. Also, MS has been known to "pump up" version
>> numbers to make their software look better than their competitors. Example:
>> MS Word jumped from 2.0 to 6.0 on the Windows platform just to make Word
>> look more advanced than Word Perfect, which was in version 5.0 while Word
>> was still in v. 2.0b. Verdict:: the quality of the software, not the
>> version number, is what's most important.
>>
>
>Yes, and this was what first made me wary about the quality of
>Microsoft software; I mean, a company that thinks that upping the
>version number is a serious marketing move? But what is even more
>scary: Apparently quite a large number of people actually bought Word
>6.0 _because_ of that higher-than-WordPerfect (and AmiPro) number! And
>they allow these people to use a computer!! What am I saying, they
>allow these people out on the street!!!
>
Just like NT version 1.0, marketed as 3.1.
--
Remove 'wakawaka' and 'invalid' to e-mail me. You can thank spammers for this
inconvenience.
I didn't do it! Nobody saw anything! You can't prove anything! -- bart
------------------------------
From: John Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Answer this if you can...
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:59:27 +0100
On 12 Feb 2001 16:34:10 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (rich) wrote:
>Also schrieb John Muir:
>>Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>Answer this, John:
>
>Why do your and Flatfish and Claire's posts ALL originate from the same
>posting host domain in California?
I've no idea about the others (who is Claire?), but I am in Germany as
you ought to be able to fathom from the headers.
Could it be that the newsgroup host in in Ca? Check your own config.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Help with LILO
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:10:02 +0000
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> : Loadlin isn't as quick or easy as LILO
>
> Loadlin isn't as quick to boot... but Loadlin is way easier to set up than
> LILO will ever be. Loadlin doesn't care about flaky BIOSes like how LILO does.
> Read my thread called "Linux Distributions" for an explanation of my own
> idiopathic LILO problems and my workarounds.
>
> I've tried installing LILO but ended up trying every workaround imagineable to
> do without it and Loadlin won out over rawcopy kernel floppies or even
> sliver-sized rawcopy kernel hard drive partitions. The only thing I refused to
> resort to is a commercial boot loader.
>
I've always found LILO very easy to configure, maybe I just got lucky
with the hardware.
--
http://www.guild.bham.ac.uk/chess-club
------------------------------
From: John Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Answer this if you can...
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 20:07:00 +0100
On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:39:57 +0000, "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> Thank you for your honesty. sO How about solving my problem now instead
>> of insulting me?
>
>
>You posted a rant, not a problem. If you have key mapping problems,
>follow the instructions in the web page you posted.
>
>But:
>
>You might have to change <Key> to <KeyPress> for xterm's key mappings.
>
Thanks Ed!
------------------------------
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 19:19:44 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:59:33
[T. Max:]
>> They're sock puppets. They've made their money in the MS world, and are
>> terrified they would be incapable of doing so in a non-MS world. Plus,
>> their money is still tied to MS, generally, which re-enforces their
>> fear. Like Gates and Palmer, they watch their stock value shrink, and
>> they think of Linux, and they'll say or try to believe anything to avoid
>> confronting the reality that Windows is doomed.
>
>I make money off of them too by developing software and I certainly don't
>have any sympathy for developers worried about their next paycheck if
>Windows development should dry up in the future. If you can't adapt - Find
>a new line of work. As for stockholders losing money - That kind of goes
>with the territory. If THEY can't adapt, there's always a bridge or
>skyscraper.
The world does not consist solely of developers and stockholders, but
your point is not lost. Still, its not really relevant, either;
developers would not make very good sock puppets to begin with.
They make their money by selling out to MS; that cash is going to dry up
if MS is not allowed to monopolize, and it has nothing to do with
technology.
--
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.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:19:46 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:16:40
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:96834m$gus$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <HcLh6.114728$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >How could I forget? I never knew :-) I came into this to rebut your
>> >assertions that Microsoft implementations are not "professional". I've
>> >established that they are by definition.
>> >
>> "Professional" does not mean "better quality."
>>
>> A "professional" paints your house, an "amateur" painted the Cistine
>> Chapel.
>
>DaVinci actually painted chapels, portraits and other works for
>a living. He was, by definition, a professional.
>
>The old man that is bored in his retirement and paints cute little
>paintings that sell for $20 at the local craft store: that's Linux --
>er that amateur.
I'm afraid you've tripped over your dick, again, Chad. If the paintings
sell for $20, that makes the retiree a professional painter. And if his
paintings end up selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars after he's
dead, he could even be 'another DaVinci'.
The point is you were trying, unsuccessfully, as always, to say that
Linux has less quality because some of it has been developed by
volunteers. Its an incredibly stupid point, really asinine given that
their work was open source and that guarantees higher quality than
proprietary crapware, but that is the point you were trying to make.
--
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.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:19:48 GMT
Said Mike Byrns in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:08:10
[...]
>I do no such thing. We were talking about comments in code made by
>adolescent seeming linux "programmers" that seem to think that bashing a
>fine MS implemetation of TCP/IP is worthwhile. I opine that your entire
>existance is not worthwhile, based on all your inane rhetoric.
Oddly enough, that's just what I was going to say.
>> Well, I know Giuliano is far too polite to say it, so I'll point out
>> that you're full of shit. If you had the ability to comment on the
>> persons code, then you can do so. Your consideration of the value of
>> validity of his comments, regardless, is really along the lines of "you
>> and the rest of the Microsoft loonies have no say in what we do at all."
>
>The shit is in you bud. Neither you nor him have ever even SEEN the MS
>code. I HAVE seen the linux code. I can comment all I want. :-)
We don't care how much bullshit you make up; that isn't the point.
[...]
>> >Microsoft's implementations are by definition
>> >"professional" -- that's what they do for a living. Linux
>implementations
>> >are by definition "amateur" as they are done as a pastime rather than as
>a
>> >profession. There are maybe a hundred or so folks that actually get paid
>to
>> >code linux (the kernel) and all the varied programs included in all the
>> >distros combined. Hell, Torvalds doesn't even get paid to do the
>kernel --
>> >he gets paid to write microcode for the Transmeta chips and to write the
>> >currently CLOSED SOURCE Mobile Linux.
>>
>> And yet Linux is decidedly kicking Microsoft's ass;
>
>Post some proof to this and I will consider you less of a loser.
I don't care what you think, Mike; you're a troll.
>> when the government
>> finally ends their illegal behavior, they're really going to be up
>> against a wall. Right now they're just really scared, and it is pretty
>> cool to watch. ;-)
>
>Perhaps they, not you, define legality? I don't think that the USGov is
>"scared" in any way. Triffled yes.
Parsing error:Microsoft is the scared one.
[...]
--
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.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:19:49 GMT
Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:20:48
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>>Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 11 Feb 2001 21:08:42
>>>IBM has a solid record of turning out brilliant technology and hopeless
>>>marketing. [...]
>>
>>This oft-repeated bit of nonsense is so vapid as to be tiresome. IBM
>>has a mixed record, as all business do, of both technology and
>>'marketing'.
>
>Fair enough - they have a bit of mixed record, but it is swayed in that
>direction (unlike certain other companies, which are swayed heavily in the
>other direction).
Making it a tentative statement makes it no less vapid, I think. You're
just buying into the 'hindsight bias' which amateurs often mistake for
business analysis. It is obvious that IBM did a truly excellent job of
'marketing' OS/2, since it is still on the market despite having to
oppose illegal anti-competitive monopolization. Not to mention it is
apparently excellent, technically.
Microsoft's business isn't "swayed heavily" towards marketing at all.
They are entirely engaged in monopolization. They use advertising and
press releases as a heavy smoke screen for their illegal behavior behind
the scenes is; that doesn't make it effective marketing.
[...]
> IBM could have stood against MS, and we would be in a rather different
> position now. But they judged the market for OS/2 to be too small to
> make take on MS - and that is only because the market was happier to
> wait an extra year or so for the much inferior Win95, rather than buy
> OS/2 Warp that was available at the time.[...]
IBM did stand against MS; that's why OS/2 is still available. They
didn't make any foolish decisions trying to "compete" with the
anti-competitive. Monopolization isn't simply having large market
share, you know; you don't make a calculation and consider how large
your potential market is in deciding whether or not you can "stand up"
to a monopolist. Well, not unless you don't want to stay in business.
You cannot out-compete a monopoly, and what makes the 'market happy' is
just as meaningless in determining how monopolization works.
--
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.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: ERIK FUNKENBUSH CAN'T TELL US ***WHAT*** .NET IS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:19:51 GMT
Said chrisv in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:41:08 GMT;
>"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>> To you, sir, I say, "wake up and smell the coffee".
>>
>>BLACK HELIOCOPTERS! HERE THEY COME, RUN FOR COVER!
>
>Yep, we're all paranoid. Microsoft doesn't really want to monopolize
>things. They don't want to maximize the amount of money they make.
Maximizing the amount of money you make is a matter of competing, I'm
afraid, whether they cover this in Business 101 or not. Monopolization
does not maximize the money you make; it is a form of theft, so one can
hardly say one 'makes' the money one gets away with.
>Sheesh. Isn't this what all businessmen do? Isn't this business 101?
No. To compete is the opposite of monopolizing. This is anti-trust law
101.
--
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.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:20:14 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 06:49:19
[...]
>True to some extent. What I'd like to see implemented is the same system
>also managing, reliably, transaction services across divergent platforms
>and make such interoperability seamless. An adhered to, yet extensible,
>platform-encompassing API being the glue that holds it all together.
Congratulations. You've just re-invented middleware. ;-)
--
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.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 19:20:34 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 09:59:33
[T. Max:]
>> They're sock puppets. They've made their money in the MS world, and are
>> terrified they would be incapable of doing so in a non-MS world. Plus,
>> their money is still tied to MS, generally, which re-enforces their
>> fear. Like Gates and Palmer, they watch their stock value shrink, and
>> they think of Linux, and they'll say or try to believe anything to avoid
>> confronting the reality that Windows is doomed.
>
>I make money off of them too by developing software and I certainly don't
>have any sympathy for developers worried about their next paycheck if
>Windows development should dry up in the future. If you can't adapt - Find
>a new line of work. As for stockholders losing money - That kind of goes
>with the territory. If THEY can't adapt, there's always a bridge or
>skyscraper.
The world does not consist solely of developers and stockholders, but
your point is not lost. Still, its not really relevant, either;
developers would not make very good sock puppets to begin with.
They make their money by selling out to MS; that cash is going to dry up
if MS is not allowed to monopolize, and it has nothing to do with
technology.
--
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.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 19:20:49 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 13:16:40
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:96834m$gus$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <HcLh6.114728$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> Mike Byrns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >How could I forget? I never knew :-) I came into this to rebut your
>> >assertions that Microsoft implementations are not "professional". I've
>> >established that they are by definition.
>> >
>> "Professional" does not mean "better quality."
>>
>> A "professional" paints your house, an "amateur" painted the Cistine
>> Chapel.
>
>DaVinci actually painted chapels, portraits and other works for
>a living. He was, by definition, a professional.
>
>The old man that is bored in his retirement and paints cute little
>paintings that sell for $20 at the local craft store: that's Linux --
>er that amateur.
I'm afraid you've tripped over your dick, again, Chad. If the paintings
sell for $20, that makes the retiree a professional painter. And if his
paintings end up selling for hundreds of thousands of dollars after he's
dead, he could even be 'another DaVinci'.
The point is you were trying, unsuccessfully, as always, to say that
Linux has less quality because some of it has been developed by
volunteers. Its an incredibly stupid point, really asinine given that
their work was open source and that guarantees higher quality than
proprietary crapware, but that is the point you were trying to make.
--
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
******************************
