Linux-Advocacy Digest #607, Volume #32 Sat, 3 Mar 01 02:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux? (Donn Miller)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Amphetamine Bob)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Amphetamine Bob)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (Amphetamine Bob)
Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time (Jay Maynard)
Re: [OT] .sig (Robert Stankowic)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Amphetamine Bob)
Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market ("2 + 2")
Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments.... ("2 + 2")
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Amphetamine Bob)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (Amphetamine Bob)
Re: [OT] .sig (CBFalconer)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Amphetamine Bob)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 00:10:19 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Whats the difference between BSD and Linux?
J Sloan wrote:
> I have a lot of respect for BSD, having used it, but the main
> problem with bsd is the bigots -
>
> If you really want to frost a bsd bigot, point them to the
> specweb 99 benchmarks -
BSD bigots are probably bitter because Linux has this wide following,
while FreeBSD is just making a meager dent into the world (compared to
Linux). But, I think there's more to an OS than just popularity.
Remember, Linux is pretty popular, but let's come down to earth:
Windows is still very dominant in most aspects of the PC world. Linux
is gaining wide popularity and acceptance, but I'm disappointed in that
games developers are still overlooking this platform. If developers did
their homework, they'd find that XFree86 supports the DGA extension,
which is similar to Direct X, and Xv, which is similar to the MS video
extension. But games developers are greedy, and not at all concerned
with the state of computer software. They're content to stay in the
mainstream, consumer OS (which is presently Windows, unfortunately)
instead of doing the world a favor and contributing to the good of the
computer science world by becoming an XFree86 developer and contributing
to the development of XFree86 DGA and Xv. It's this whole "let's just
program for Windows, because, well, it's popular, and we'd have to learn
something different (linux+X) which is a distraction" attitude that
bothers me. Of course, surely Real Networks figured out by now that
XFree86 has both a DGA and an Xv extension? But, why waste the effort,
when they are already familar with MS video and DirectX? This is what
I'm trying to get at.
There are a lot of areas in which I'd like to see Linux catch up. I see
that there are a huge %'age of companies producing PC-controlled
machinery running (ugh!) Windows 95 and 98. Disgusting! One area I'm
talking about is CNC machinery, if you know what I mean. I'm disgusted
that any company would even consider using this poor excuse for an OS to
controll any machinery. I know one thing, I sure wouldn't want to be
anywhere near a lathe, for example, when Win 95 crashes.
Also, I still see a ton of electrical engineering jobs (embedded control
systems) that use Windows 95 and NT as the development platform of
choice. It's truly disgusting, but one guy I was interviewed told me:
"We don't run unix here. Whatever Bill Gates says we have to run on our
computers, that's what we have to run. It has nothing to do with how
good unix or Windows is." I interviewed with another company that
produced electronic monitoring equipment controlled thru the RS-232 port
by PC's. I asked him if they ever used Linux, and he said "Yeah, but
the clients didn't understand it (linux)." So, they were stuck using
ultra-unreliable Wincrap 95 and Windows 2000 as the the operating system
of choice. He said they had a lot of crashes with Windows 95, and that
truly is a shame. Had they bothered to hire someone with any Linux
savvy at all, they would've found out that it's possible to produce
something easy-to-use using Linux.
Basically, the PC's were supposed to just boot right up into a GUI with
the monitoring software already running. Well, I imagine it would be
possible to do this with Linux. Normally, you would have to do it with
xdm asking for a login, but there should be no login prompt at all --
just straight to the GUI after the boot-up is complete. I'm sure it's
possible to do this.
Anyways, even Linux has a ways to go yet at gaining some wide
acceptance. Surely, it's caught a lot of people's attention. It
provides a great reward for those who are familiar with Linux, as they
will soon find out that it is a superior platform to Windows that can
save on licensing costs as well. As for the rest of the world, well,
they can stay resigned to the "let's go with what's popular"
philosophy; it's their loss.
Back to the topic with RS-232 embedded programming and control systems.
I think it'd be easier to program the RS-232 port with Linux ioctl's
than with Windows. With Windows, you're always doing something stupid
like reading and writing to COM[1-9]:. And when you've got 10 or more
serial ports, well, the programming gets kind of ugly with the Win 32
API.
Anyhow, BSD advocates need not be bitter, because BSD IS making a sound
in the computer world, and it's just a matter of time before companies
realize its potential (or should I say their potential). It's very
unrealistic to think that BSD will be overtaking Linux any time soon, or
even approach %20 of the popularity of Linux. But hey, Linux still has
a long ways to go at convincing people that it is a better and cheaper
and better platform than Windows. Until Linux can do this, BSD and
Linux are in the same boat, pretty much.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Amphetamine Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:13:03 -0800
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> Yes, but most people use Microsoft Word and not professional tools.
Hahahahaha!!!!! Darn right it is not a professional tool! Word is
truly awful. Arrogant, obnoxious, in your face, irritating. In fact,
Word is remarkably like MS! ;)
>
> > > For a better comparison, look at WordPerfect's price over time.
> >
> > That's not a better comparison. WordPerfect became a failure in the market,
WordPerfect was illegally murdered by MS. This is obvious. The best
WP on Earth (and WordPerfect 6.1 for DOS was awful close) did not
stand a chance against MS, and none ever will until MS is broken up.
> > and was sold from company to company. They sell it for a fraction of the
> > cost because nobody will buy it at it's full cost.
No.
>
> Because it's not *worth* that much for a word processor.
Well, actually, almost everyone I know who has used both WordPerfect
and Word much prefers WordPerfect. And the same with Word Pro. That
is a truly excellent WP! There are lots of great ones out there.
Ever try Describe or XYWrite? Do. The saddest thing about the MS
monopoly is how much much superior products were illegally murdered by
Bill Gates. And we all pay for that. :(
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Other (describe)
[ ] None of the above
------------------------------
From: Amphetamine Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:15:01 -0800
JamesW wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2 Mar 2001 20:00:07 +0000, Erik Funkenbusch wrote
> (in message <bZSn6.383$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>):
>
> > That's not a better comparison. WordPerfect became a failure in the market,
> > and was sold from company to company. They sell it for a fraction of the
> > cost because nobody will buy it at it's full cost.
>
> WordPerfect was destroyed by M$'s OS monoply - BillG sold M$ Word at an
> artificially low price subsidised by DOS and Windoze - until the majority of
> users were using Word/Office and competitors couldn't compete (the
> competitors didn't have an OS monopoly to fall back on).
Not only that but he played horrid games with his stupid file formats
that have harmed consumers and businesses all over the world and
helped set computing back 5-10 years at least.
>
> Once he had removed the competition he screwed Word/Office users for all he
> could get.
Yep, even the reactionaries at Forbes Magazine say this is true.
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Other (describe)
[ ] None of the above
------------------------------
From: Amphetamine Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 21:20:26 -0800
Bloody Viking wrote:
>
> J Sloan ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
> : > use 95 briefly or mess with hardware. Linux NEVER crashes unless you really
> : > fuck up.
>
> : Hey, I like that last sentence, can I use it in my .sig?
>
> Sure! It falls under the GNU copyright licence.
>
>LOL.
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Other (describe)
[ ] None of the above
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jay Maynard)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: definition of "free" for N-millionth time
Date: 3 Mar 2001 06:07:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 2 Mar 2001 20:41:03 GMT, Steve Mading <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Actually, if this is the same JD guy I rememeber arguing with months
>before, his beef isn't with the speech/beer difference of 'free'. His
>beef is that if he isn't allowed to grab the code and hide it in a
>closed-source project without giving attributions (like the BSD
>license now lets you do), then it isn't truly free, in his mind. He
>won't call it free unless he has the freedom to make his version less
>free than the source he obtained it from. He wants the freedom to
>remove the freedom. A bit daft, really.
This is standard GPV zealot doublethink. You *cannot* remove freedoms from
the original code. That code is now, and will always be, free. If that were
not the case, then the BSD codebase would have disappeared into SunOS a
long, long time ago.
Freedom must necessarily include the freedom to do things that piss you off,
or else it is a hollow shell. The BSD license does, and the GPV does not.
That is why calling the GPV free is a baldfaced lie.
------------------------------
From: Robert Stankowic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 07:05:52 +0100
Jim Richardson schrieb:
>
> On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 14:16:58 +0100,
> Robert Stankowic, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> brought forth the following words...:
>
[....]
>
> "I find the word plonk offensive, since your post arrived at my computer, I
> hold you reseponsible, stop using the work plonk..."
I will do my best to do so in the future. ;-)
>
> see how rediculous this sounds?
[....]
I am confident you _know_ that it is not the sig. When people start
to use their elbows and one just gives room, that one will very soon
end up in a corner with his back nailed to the wall. They never stop
if you give in, and in usenet I unfortunately found no better way
not to give in than p***k.
Warmest regards
--
Robert Stankowic
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"The regular early morning yell of horror" - Douglas Adams
------------------------------
From: Amphetamine Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 22:20:00 -0800
Microsoft Big Brother InBiz wrote:
>
> "Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JS PL <js@plcom> wrote:
> > >
> > >Then why all the whining about a supposed microsoft tax. No one who has
> > >ever bought a computer in the history of man has been forced to pay extra
> > >for an OS they didn't want. I can't think of a time when hardware hasn't
> > >been available seperate from software. If you own a copy of Windows it's
> > That ignores the years when DOS and Windows were licensed
> > per-processor of course.
These agreements, in general, continue to this very day.
> >
> > The OEM paid for a license on every computer they shipped whether it
> > was actually loaded or not.
>
> That was one package available. But even at it's hieght, 60% chose that
> route.
I find that very hard to believe. I am sure the other packages were
also some sort of illegal, anticompetitive agreement. That makes your
statement utterly meaningless.
And the OEM's were the ones asking for per processor agreements.
Hahahahahahaha! What a joke! Like IBM, for instance?
I know for a fact that you are wrong!!!!!! I recently spoke to a
sales rep at, I believe, Acer. She told me that they had an agreement
with Microsoft that all PC's leaving their warehouse must have an MS
OS. She sounded very disgusted and said her company did not like the
agreement one bit. A lot of OEM's would love to ship computers with
other OS's, or even with no OS (no support charges). In late 95, a
number of large OEM's were agitating to preload OS/2. IBM met with
them and a tentative agreement was set. The MS Mafia stepped in and
put an end to free choice. A friend of mine working for an OEM in
Taiwan was forced by MS to stop selling DR-DOS and sell only MS-DOS in
1986, supposedly before the MS monopoly even started. His company was
not happy at all about this but they had to sign the agreement if they
wished to stay in business.
Get
> with it. MS ultimately has the right to set terms of sale.
No they do not, you stupid fool! What kind of libertarian fantasy
world do you live in? All of these evil agreements that you
disturbingly defend are illegal. All one has to do is read the text
of the Sherman Antitrust Act and it is obvious that MS cannot "set
terms of sale", as you put it. That Act, and the Clayton Act which
followed, outlaw any and all anticompetitive contracts and
agreements. You don't like the law, change it!
When the higher
> court laughs this whole "monopoly" joke out of court you'll see that MS has
> never enjoyed even the remotest hint of being a monopoly, fool.
God, what a stupid fool!!!!!! Doesn't even believe that MS in a
monopoly! Anyone with a 50 IQ can see that. How did you figure out
how to get on the Internet anyway?
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Other (describe)
[ ] None of the above
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows Owns Desktop, Extends Lead in Server Market
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 01:21:07 -0500
Win 2000 Server has grown less than expected.
Linux meanwhile has gained great momentum, and is being supported by IBM and
others as a prelude for greater growth in the future in all segments of the
market.
As a low cost alternative, the current slump can be expected to favor Linux
greatly.
For instance, Dell offers low cost servers, which come at no additional
price for Linux. Load Win2000 Server and it costs extra.
Now a proper analysis of what is best always depends on a company's
particular mix of technologies.
However, both Win 2000 Server and Linux will take market share in the
current downturn, but Linux may well take the most.
2 + 2
Jon Johanson wrote in message <3aa0006b$0$48689$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=20143
>
>two excerpt:
>"Microsoft's market dominance on the desktop--and increasingly, on the
>server as well. According to the report, Microsoft's desktop share has
grown
>from 89 percent last year to 92 percent this year. But what's even more
>amazing is that Microsoft's share of the server market has outgrown upstart
>Linux, leaping from 38 percent of the market last year to 41 percent this
>year. Linux also grew, but at a slower rate than in the past, and the
growth
>of this open-source OS is apparently coming at the expense of Novell and
>various versions of UNIX, not Windows 2000 and Windows NT. Linux grew from
>25 percent of the market last year to 27 percent this year."
>
>and
>
>"In related news, the latest Netcraft survey of Web server software usage
>shows Windows servers with a strong lead over Linux and UNIX; about 55
>percent of all secure Web servers run on Windows. Linux is less than one
>third of that figure. Measuring secure Web server server (that is, SSL or
>Secure Sockets Layer server) usage is considered more accurate than blindly
>measuring every "mom and pop" Web server out there. Anyone can (and often
>does) set up a Web server on a cable or Digital Subscriber Line (DSL)
>connection, but that doesn't make for relevant statistics. Netcraft
measures
>secure Web servers to gain an idea of who's using what in the real world. "
>
>
>
------------------------------
From: "2 + 2" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Judge Harry Edwards comments....
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 01:21:49 -0500
Charlie Ebert wrote in message ...
>In article <97nhgp$rdj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>Charlie Ebert wrote in message ...
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.eetimes.com/special/special_issues/millennium/companies/bell.
ht
>>ml
>>>>
>>>> At first the research arm of AT&T, Bell Labs enjoyed a special
status
>>>> after its founding in the 1920s. Because of the monopoly granted
AT&T
>>>> by the government, in the interests of standardizing the telephone
>>>> system, the lab could both be part of a commercial operation and
play
>>>> the open role of a national laboratory.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I see this in print and I've read it.
>>>
>>>There is no record in congress of an actual vote nor bill passed which
>>>grants AT&T nor IT&T a monopoly that I've seen.
>>>
>>>Perhaps what they are refering to is some kind of excusive contract.
>>>
>>>But I can't seem to find support for where congress passed and the
>>>president signed any such bill approving a monopoly.
>>
>>Charlie,
>>
>>I know the posters think that you put up phony links and side squirts.
>>
>>However, your great mind is actually in great demand.
>>
>>I am here to offer you a guest spot on a nationally syndicated show.
>>
>>Yes, you have been selected because of your extensive knowledge on the
>>subject of antitrust.
>>
>>The breadth of your intellect is what impresses.
>>
>>So I'd like to invite you to the Art Bell show as an expert on ALIEN
>>Antitrust.
>>
>>Well, you might say, hey wait a minute.
>>
>>But I say, all those great ideas come from SOMEPLACE, huh buddy?
>>
>>2 + 2
>>
>
>That or Tom Ballentine, right?
Heh. Heh.
2 + 2
>
>Charlie
>
>
------------------------------
From: Amphetamine Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 22:26:00 -0800
Dave wrote:
>>
> It's too late now because of the DMCA,
Ok, clue me in, someone, what is this obviously fucked-up, Bill
Gates-type law?
Sounds like a typical shitty law that our *whore* legislators would
pass. No doubt supported by all the *disgusting* big SW companies,
the same ones that lie about a nonexistent "tech worker shortage" so
they can bring in 100'000's of mediocre programmers from India to
screw the American tech worker. And the typical American programmer
raves about how wonderful big corporations are. Oh, yeh, Big Business
is on your side, right! People with a brain can at least figure out
who their enemies are.
but it would have been
> interesting if someone in the right state who'd been refused a refund
> a few years ago had posted their copy of Windows 98SE & registration
> code on a highly visible website.
Hahahahaha. Good one.
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Other (describe)
[ ] None of the above
------------------------------
From: Amphetamine Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 22:27:35 -0800
Steve Mading wrote:
>>
> How do you put together a computer without a disk drive or CPU?
> At various times BOTH those products had the MS tax on them, even
> when sold individually.
Really? Whoa! Enlighten me, brother, never heard of those crimes
before.
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Other (describe)
[ ] None of the above
------------------------------
From: CBFalconer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 06:29:13 GMT
Brent R wrote:
>
> Michael Powe wrote:
> >
>
> I'm not even sure Kulkis is a real person. Personally, I think that
> someone programmed an "angry American right-winger" bot and slapped the
> name Kulkis on it just to test out the Turing machine theory.
>
> > You can lead a fool to an idea, but you can't make him think. Give
> > the guy a wide berth and at least some of the pity he deserves. He's
> > probably as big a loser in the real world as he is in the virtual
> > one.
>
> Just don't get too close to him when he's angry. He already claimed it
> would justified to shoot Microsoft employees. I think he's unstable (if
> he's a real person).
If he has done that he has committed an overt act that makes him
subject to being locked up. He has long been plonked here.
People and authorities are quite touchy about that sort of threat
after some of the recent experiences.
--
Chuck F ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.qwikpages.com/backstreets/cbfalconer
(Remove "NOSPAM." from reply address. my-deja works unmodified)
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (for spambots to harvest)
------------------------------
From: Amphetamine Bob <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: Fri, 02 Mar 2001 22:46:51 -0800
Craig Kelley wrote:
>
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > "Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> >
> > Wordperfect can read and write word documents just fine.
Wrong again, Erik. Gong! There is no product on the market that can
read and write Word docs, or any other evil proprietary MS formats.
Bill Gates has played this sleazy file format game on the whole world,
damaging all of us to the tune of billions of dollars, and setting
back mankind a number of years. The MS monopoly has been a disaster
for human civilization.
>
> Then why don't people buy it?
Cuz it doesn't read and write Word docs, you lying fool! Also,
network effects, bundling and the everyone is doing it philosophy.
If there is a free market,
There is not one.
and
> Wordperfect is just fine at reading *all* Word documents (including
> OLE spreadsheets and DAO snippets),
It isn't. Anyone knows that.
then how come it isn't wildly
> successful? It does cost about 1/4th as much. Boggles the mind.
>
> > > WordPerfect, in short, *can't* compete because the market isn't fair.
> >
> > How is that MS's fault? What could they do to prevent that?
In the case of an illegal monopoly, no one will ever be able to topple
the illegal monopoly through normal business practices. Anyone
reading up on monopolization knows this. That is why we have laws
against this sort of thing. Anyway, it *is* MS' fault because they
illegally murdered WordPerfect along with many other fine apps,
harming humanity and progress at the same time.
>
> If they
> weren't so *afraid* of losing (Bill Gate's paranoia at work, I
> suppose) all the time, they could actually work with other
> companies and people instead of against them all the time.
This will never happen. Anyone that knows anything about MS knows
they are evil to the core. The only solution is total destruction.
Hence the name of this newsgroup. ;)
> > > >
> > > WordPerfect isn't the angel I've presented it to be by any means; they
> were slow to come to the Windows world -- but that is only *part* of
> the problem.
It would not have mattered anyway. All that would have done is bought
them some time. As T.Max states, no business anywhere can compete
against an illegal monopoly. It is impossible.
--
Bob
Being flamed? Don't know why? Take the Flame Questionnaire(TM)
today!
Why do you think you are being flamed?
[ ] You continued a long, stupid thread
[ ] You started an off-topic thread
[ ] You posted something totally uninteresting
[ ] People don't like your tone of voice
[ ] Other (describe)
[ ] None of the above
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
