Linux-Advocacy Digest #161, Volume #32 Mon, 12 Feb 01 23:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux Threat: non-existant (Bloody Viking)
Re: Answer this if you can... (J Sloan)
Re: Interesting article ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Interesting article (J Sloan)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Aaron Kulkis)
Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux... (J Sloan)
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Bloody Viking)
Re: Interesting article ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Interesting article ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (J Sloan)
Re: Interesting article (Jerry McBride)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("Mike Byrns")
Re: Answer this if you can... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?) ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Answer this if you can... ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux (Bloody Viking)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Linux Threat: non-existant
Date: 13 Feb 2001 03:13:28 GMT
Boris Dynin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: I'm a developer. Never used Linux in my life (and not going to). I got Sun
: workstation on my desk (and 5 NT/W2k PCs). I'm tremendously more productive
: on Windows than on Sun. MS development tools are the best of breed in my
: opinion (I'm talking about Visual Studio 6); I'm a C++ programmer. Visual
: C++ IDE is light years ahead of vi, emacs, gdb. As for Unix utilities: awk,
: perl, etc. - there are Windows versions which I use all the time (awk).
So, you make a living coding payware. Gotta make a C-Note somehow. (: The
ability to code payware is the only advantage of a payware platform like
Windows. The profit margins dwarf the illegal drug industry by far. The
richest druglord had only $4G while Bill Gates has $90G. Bill Gates has more
BUCKS than an 80G hard drive holds BYTES. Visualise what 80G is in terms of a
hard drive compared to floppies. Or even Zip disks. Or, to stick with money, a
Bill Gates is equal to 40 Pablo Escobars. (the rich druglord)
But are you getting half the profit your code generates? Or is it a dogbert in
a business suit who probably never coded a batch script in his life?
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Answer this if you can...
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:25:10 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:43:02 -0500, Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >that's why their software is so insecure right? B/c they think people
> >getting viruses and having their data erased is a good thing and shows
> >they care about their users?
>
> People get virii because they are stupid and that stupidity includes
> running Outlook.
which only runs on windoze....
jjs
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:28:03 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> 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.
I was defending. You folks were bashing. Bashing something you have never
seen nor do you know anything more than hearsay about.
> >> 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.
Read the post and reply to it rationally or you've lost, idiot.
>
> [...]
> >> >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.
I've won then. You folks were bashing an implementation you have never
seen. You cannot counter that.
>
> >> 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.
The only one that appears scared is McNealy: "Please don't pardon them
Dubya! We worked so had using the previous govt as a puppet to our (AOL,
Sun, Oracle, etc) ends, you can't come along now and spoil it!" :-)
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:28:19 GMT
Chad Myers wrote:
> But it has. It has grabbed a significant amount of server share from
> Unix. When NT 4.0 was released, NT made up less than 2% of the
> server market. It now makes up a majority, IIRC. If not, close to it.
You're sadly mistaken - windows nt has gained market share
solely at the expense of other pc operating systems such as
netware, OS2 and windows for workgroups.
> There was, is, and always will be a strong Unix contingent just
> because Unix admins are blockheads and refuse to use whatever's
> best, only Unix. However, Linux is a suitable alternative, so
> this is why Unix has made in-roads. It's not unix, but it's
> close enough and it's a lot cheaper than Solaris or HP-UX.
It's not Unix by a lawyer's definition, but it's Unix by
a techie definition, to be sure. and it's the fastest
developing Unix in existence.
jjs
------------------------------
From: Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 22:28:37 -0500
Perry Pip wrote:
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:48:15 +0000,
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >
> >Unless your printer understands postscript, you can't.
>
> Even if your printer does understand postscript, you can't, except
> thru a dos box.
>
> >Pete Goodwin, running Linux Mandrake 7.2
>
> sed "s/running/misconfiguring and whining about/"
s/misconfiguring/sabotaging
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: User Interfaces in the world of Linux...
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:30:23 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > 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 presume you are referring to Microsoft Windows here. If you use
> focus follows mouse or sloppy focus under X you don't have to
> raise a window to make it active. Personally I hate autoraise
> but that is just my opinion. At least we have the choice as usual.
hehe - well viva la difference.
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: 13 Feb 2001 03:39:40 GMT
Mike Martinet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: In my experience, copy protection just doesn't work - either at home or
: work. People blithely trade registration numbers and disks and software
: with dongles gets replaced with applications that don't require keeping
: track of a serial-port plug. I can't imagine home users being happy
: about MS using their machines against them.
The warez doods just simply find new ways to circumvent "copyright
protection". One of the most pathetic things I saw so far was embeddedware for
a robot. The app will work for 2 hours as a demo unless a thing with an EPROM
is plugged into the printer fitting. Luckily for the company, the postal
service does not attempt to reverse engineer the "key". But a private business
with a decent ET would.
The jig is up for copyright. No "protection" scheme has ever stopped a warez
dood. The seeming low sales of Linux belies the fact it's freely and LEGALLY
copied to numerous machines. Fire up a server with a distro, and put it on the
server's filesystem. Copy the Linux all you want until the server's hard drive
dies if you want.
As far as commercialware, I got fed up with prices YEARS ago, back when it was
way less costly. Now, the prices are unreal. 1994, a C compiler, full version
cost $70. Now, you get a broken "student" version for $300. Way back when,
Office cost $200. Now, it's like $600. This pay per view bullshit will cause a
mass migration to Linux or a LOT of computers in the dumpsters waiting for us
to make clusters out of. The payware paradigm is in its death throes from its
own insatiable greed.
: I think in about 2 years there's going to be a hell of a lot of business
: for people who know how to set up Linux.
: *Service pack. What a great marketing spin on the old 'patch', eh? "We
: don't need no stinkin' patches!"
: MjM
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:39:57 GMT
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 05:21:41 GMT, "Mike Byrns"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:11:39 GMT, "Mike Byrns"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Linux implementations
> >> >are by definition "amateur" as they are done as a pastime rather than
as
> >a
> >> >profession.
> >>
> >> Then what's it say about MS's so-called "professional" programmers,
> >> that these "amateur" linux programmers stole 30% of MS's Server
> >> market? <chortle!>
> >
> >First of all it "says" nothing because it's patently untrue.
>
> Rubbish. I got the number from your own source (IDC).
Post the link then like I did.
> >There are two
> >server markets -- WWW and LAN/Applications. January 2001 Netcraft report
> >says
>
> That's it, keep subdividing the issue until you can find some sliver
> where MS actually shows some growth.
I've shown growth in each market and I've posted proof. Where's your proof?
> >This is particularly interesting since web serving was a completely UNIX
> >market in the beginning. Microsoft was a latecomer to the party.
> >Microsoft's only been playing the web game in earnest since IIS3.0
> >introduced ASP in late 1997. See
> >http://windowsitlibrary.com/Content/435/11/1.html. So if you really want
to
> >talk about who stole who's market I think you need to do your history
> >homework :-)
>
> "Of course the increase was dramatic: It's easy to make big gains when
> you're starting from scratch." ;->
>
> >If you dig a little deeper into the Netcraft site you'll find that most
of
> >the big names are running Apache on Solaris or IIS on NT/2000. As a
> >platform/server combo Windows beats the pants off Apache on Linux.
>
> Actually I never noticed any Netcraft breakdowns by operating system,
> though I can't imagine why they wouldn't have one. Do you have a URL?
Go to http://www.1000hot.com take the tops sites and input URL to
http://uptime.netcraft.com/.
> >On the LAN/Applications server front the truth is even more in contrast
to
> >your statements. NT usage has increased pretty steadily since it's
> >introduction. Linux' gains have come principally at the expense of
Netware
> >and commercial Unices.
>
> It doesn't matter where the gains came from, that's still market share
> that "written-by-amateurs" linux took and Microsoft didn't.
Not from Microsoft it didn't. It can only take from Microsoft that which is
Microsoft's. It's been killing Novell primarilly and commercial UNIces to
some extent.
> >"First up is Linux, which International Data Corporation (IDC) says
captured
> >24 percent of the server market in 1999, a dramatic increase over the
> >previous year. Of course the increase was dramatic: It's easy to make big
> >gains when you're starting from scratch. Linux advocates note that the
> >market share for NT remained steady at 38 percent last year, the first
time
> >its share didn't rise. But does that figure really represent a loss for
> >Windows, or does it simply indicate market maturation?
>
> The server market wasn't "mature" if there was room for a competing OS
> to expand to 24% while NT just sat there and stagnated for two years.
Sure it was. People like you who don't like Microsoft shed their Netware
for linux.
> >What Linux backers won't tell
> >you is that IDC, which produced these figures, believes that Windows 2000
> >(the next version of NT), not Linux, will dominate the server market by
> >2003.
>
> Heck, NT dominated in 1999 (NT 38%, Linux 25%, Netware 19%, Unix 15%).
> 2003 is still too close for _any_ OS to overcome that kind of
> head-start combined with MS's marketing clout. Try looking a little
> farther down the road, say about 2005-2008.
Yah, OK. I can see this being repeated then too when Windows whatever is
the next being thing from Microsoft. Linux lacks many things right now and
if the 2.4 kernel development stagnation is any example new development will
come slower and slower...
> >> >If you could
> >> >"until all available memory has been used" then you are doing two
things
> >> >wrong -- you've turned off virtual memory and your implementation
caches
> >> >everything in memory regardless of it's size instead of implementing a
> >spool
> >> >or diff file or using memory mapped files. Perhaps a call to
> >> >GlobalMemoryStatusEx could be used to determine the right amount of
cache
> >> >:-) You also didn't specify what OS this is either, nor what
allocation
> >> >mechanism your implementation is using -- new/delete, malloc/free or
the
> >> >heap functions. In fact you've said nothing to make anyone who has
done
> >any
> >> >serious Windows programming believe a word you've said let alone be
able
> >to
> >> >blame the OS for your ineptitude.
> >> >
> >>
> >> *REAL* OS's aren't brought to their knees by an applications
> >> programmer's ineptitude.
> >
> >Then there aren't any real OSs. Everything from funky floppies
> >http://security-archive.merton.ox.ac.uk/bugtraq-199803/0182.html to ldap
> >application software
> >http://www.openldap.org/lists/openldap-software/200008/msg00306.html can
> >crash linux. My favorite "user app crashes kernel" story is
> >http://cthulhu.ale.org/ale-archive/ale-1996-08/msg00139.html and how
linux
> >crashes when it runs out of RAM
> >http://thaigate.rd.nacsis.ac.jp/list/th.pubnet.linux/msg11240.html.
> >
>
> No matter how much you quibble, you can't possibly win the stability
> issue. Linux is legendary in that department.
It's a legend in your own minds. Applications still crash it and you said
"*REAL* OS's aren't brought to their knees by an applications programmer's
ineptitude.". By your own definition, linux is not a real OS. So are you
wrong or are you wrong?
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:45:40 GMT
"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 02:16:28 GMT, "Chad Myers"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Sun, 11 Feb 2001 23:11:39 GMT, "Mike Byrns"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Linux implementations
> >> >are by definition "amateur" as they are done as a pastime rather than
as a
> >> >profession.
> >>
> >> Then what's it say about MS's so-called "professional" programmers,
> >> that these "amateur" linux programmers stole 30% of MS's Server
> >> market? <chortle!>
> >
> >Even though I know you're just being facetious, to be completely
> >accurate, Linux stole market share from other Unixes. Windows'
> >market share hasn't declined, in fact continues to rise.
>
> I could argue with that - but it's more fun pointing out that you're
> saying that "professionally written" Windows NT wasn't able to grab
> that percentage of the market away from Unix, while "non-professional"
> linux was. :-)
For those folks running commercial UNIces linux was a natural. The barriers
to entry were almost non-existant. Remeber that most tech folks in UNIX
shops are constantly battling initiatives from the business side that carry
a lower pricetag when done on NT. The UNIX back shop has to constantly
defend their knowledge base and keep NT out or have their bloated IT
salaries look ridiculously out of proportion to the same talent on Windows.
------------------------------
From: J Sloan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:45:48 GMT
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> Unless your printer understands postscript, you can't. You could use
> Ghostview, I suppose.
So, you're saying ghostview ships with windows?
jjs
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jerry McBride)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:47:05 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said Jerry McBride in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 21:11:04
> [...]
>>> IBM got lots right with OS/2, their marketing sucked big time.
>>
>>That, I totally agree with. If IBM had BIGGER BALLS and pushed a lot harder
>>when MicroSoft started their BS, I think all this crap with the DOJ and MS
>>would never have been an issue. IBM missed this target, BIG TIME. But then
>>again maybe Linux wouldn't be the same as it is now.
>
>This is where I jump in and point out that no amount of competitive
>action will counter anti-competitive actions. If the would-be
>monopolist has enough market power to wield monopoly power, they win; no
>amount of marketing or technical development will counter this.
>
Yeah... you're right. I was just crying over my spilled beer...
It would HAVE been nice though... :')
--
*******************************************************************************
* Registered Linux User Number 185956 *
*******************************************************************************
------------------------------
From: "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:51:34 GMT
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9689ti$3uc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Everybody Attacking wrote:
> >
> IN this latest fleet of Wintroll attacks, It's amazing how closely
> they follow the Microsoft negative Marketing Campaign.
>
> Just like in politics.
>
> But what do they plan on doing with Linux?
> Bankrupting Linux maybe? Humm. You can't bankrupt Linux, it's not a
> company. It's like a huge armored tank which can't even be defamed
properly,
> like a corporation could.
>
> Oh shure! You might actually get some distribution vendor to go away,
> but you sure can't kill Linux base. That's what it takes to kill Linux.
>
> What are the three things which will be here for doomsday?
>
> Cockroaches, Cher, and Linux!
And the other thing they have in common (well leave Cher out of it :-)? Due
to the age of their genetic history, they will evolve at a slower and slower
rate. More organized and opportunistic species have (and will) flourish and
inhabit greater numbers of biospheres and in greater numbers. The UNIX and
the cockroach will always survive but are doomed to the same station in the
foodchain.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Answer this if you can...
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:58:36 GMT
"John Muir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 10:44:40 GMT, "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >> >
> >> >Here. Create a file called .Xmodmap in your home directory. Put:
> >> >
> >> >keycode 22 = BackSpace
> >> >keycode 107 = Delete
> >> >
> >> Tried it, don't work.
> >>
> >
> >Just out of curiosity - Enter at the command line:
> >
> >echo $TERM
> >
> >What does that display?
> >
> Hi, just did it... 'xterm'
>
> ?
Curious, that's all....
I had similar problems at one time and the term type was reported as vt100
of all things. (RedHat)
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NTFS Limitations (Was: RE: Red hat becoming illegal?)
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:04:24 GMT
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:SLRh6.29599$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:tTKh6.1337$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
<snippage>
> >
> > I agree that the idea is VERY exciting. I've posted such in the past. I
> > just don't think MS is the company to pull it off.
> >
> > >
> > > > Especially when one considers MS's historical over-statements about
> > their
> > > > products.
> > >
> > > The beta documentation, SDKs and a full IDE studio are available for
> > > your download an perusal. No overstatements, it's all there. It
really
> > > is that good and exciting.
> >
> > When the MSDN updates come in I plan to give it a glossing over at the
> > house.
>
> You realize the entire MSDN library is online including all the
> beta documentation, don't you?
>
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/library
>
> MS made it free some time ago.
>
> Here's the .NET documentation specifically:
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/net/
>
I'll wait until the CD's come in. Its' just a lot more convenient
especially when my home connection is so unreliable. (The system here is
little better than soup cans and string. USENET is about all it can handle)
Besides, it gives me the illusion that I'm getting something for the
money...<g>
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Answer this if you can...
Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 04:06:50 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:22:09 GMT, "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >I honestly believe they can't be that stupid.
>
> Actually I think they can be, and they are growing more arrogant by
> the day.
>
> You've heard it from the Flatfish that if MS goes .net / spyware or
> whatever it is called, they will be out of the software business in
> short order.
Which is why I have a hard time swallowing the stories I'm hearing.
Congenital idiocy is too mild a description for the marketing execs who
dreamed this one up.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Subject: Re: Whistler/.NET will Help Linux
Date: 13 Feb 2001 04:07:48 GMT
Mike Martinet ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: "Le Tocq said naming the software "XP" gets rid of the idea of versions
: and moves Microsoft (MSFT) toward subscription services."
: "When you subscribe to a cable channel, it's not like you get HBO
: version 1 and a year from now HBO version 2, you subscribe to HBO," Le
: Tocq said. "It may change over time but there's no versions associated
: with it."
You can spin-doctor it all you want, but comparing software to cable
crapvision is like comparing fresh oranges to rotten bananas. People get work
done with software, not vegitating in front of a TV set. Tell you what. I'll
sell you a forklift with an electronic gizmo on it that disables it every
month at 00:00:00 on the first and I'll sell you the codes to reactivate your
forklift. Even better, instead of selling the forklift I'll sell you the
PRIVILEDGE of using it when you buy it.
Would you like to work in a warehouse driving a forklift I still own and
demand you pay me every month to retain the priviledge of its use? Oh, don't
try borrowing a friend's forklift. The Forklift Police will fine you $150,000
per forklift that isn't registered at your warehouse. And don't forget the
occasional time when the engine dies and the insturment panel shows only dark
blue with sky blue hex. (and you'll think it's normal)
Now, knowing that you NEED that forklift, would you like it if I kept jacking
up the cost of the monthly launch codes? Welcome to the convoluted world of
MS-Forklift(tm) v.1.0.
OK, so you have no expierence with using a forklift. What about the servers in
your computer room BSODing all day? You sure need those all right, and the
office workers sure need them desktops just as surely as warehouse workers
need forklifts. You would agree that the forklift example is ridiculous. But
isn't it one molecule less ridiculous to impose the same stupid terms on an
office?
Meanwhile, cable is a luxury. You can be perfectly productive without it. That
is obviously not the case with software.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
