Linux-Advocacy Digest #616, Volume #32 Sat, 3 Mar 01 13:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: So, here's something to chew on... (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New Microsoft Ad :-) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (Donovan Rebbechi)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] .sig (Brent R)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
Re: NT vs *nix performance (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: So, here's something to chew on...
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:14:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Sat, 03 Mar 2001 04:42:28 -0500
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>Michael Vester wrote:
>>
>> Aaron Kulkis wrote:
>> >
>> > Joel Barnett wrote:
>> > >
[snip for brevity]
>> > Microsoft is not merely at the bottom of the heap...
>> > it's down in the sewer.
>> >
>> > >
>>
>> Microsoft is the worst. I don't understand why this is even
>> debated.
>>
>
>Because Bill has millions of MS-drug addicts.
Not true! I can quit any time.
Really.
But just one more Word file, Excel spreadsheet, Visual C++ compile,
Internet Explorer browse session, though....please?
:-)
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- at least using MS code doesn't cause red noses
EAC code #191 26d:15h:44m actually running Linux.
All hail the Invisible Pink Unicorn (pbuh)!
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:23:24 +0000
>> GIMP is NOTHING at ALL to do with the OS. It is SEPERATE. It is an
>> APPLICATION. The OS does NOT provide multiple drivers. GIMP provids its
>> OWN. GIMP is NOT part of the OS.
>
> Then I will rephrase what I said.
>
> I'm surprised any OS or application needs extra or multiple drivers in
It doesn't.
> this day an age. All the drivers (and there should just be one set)
> ought to be in the OS, not in an application. Is that clear enough for
> you?
Is this clear enough for you:
The OS has plenty of drivers. The GIMP provides its own regardless. THIS
IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OS
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:24:51 +0000
> I thought there weren't any drivers in the OS. You have to run
> Ghostscript, CUPS, apsfilter or the like to get anything except a dump
> of Postscript to the printer port.
It is really a matter of opinion whether to include GS and/or the spooler
as part of the OS.
> Presumably if you have a ps printer you don't need any of these apps?
You still need a spooler, generally.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.sys.next.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Information wants to be free, Revisited
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 18:26:27 +0100
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "B.B." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > Police need to spend some time and money investigating (mostly)
> > non-lethal weapons. It would cut down on this kind of shit.
>
> There is no non-lethal weapon that you can mass produce which would've the
> same advantages as guns.
> Cheap, able to neutralize an enemy quickly, robust, mobile, etc.
> Non of the other method (sonic bullets, electric shock, drugs) can fill
> those demands.
> Some of the sonic bullets can be stopped by a heavy rain coat, for crying
> out load.
> A tranquilazir gun is impracticale for several reasons:
> A> You can't have one-doze-fit-all, the average doze would do nothing to
> some people, and kill others.
> B> There isn't a *single* sleeping drug that you can count on immobilizing
> the enemy without killing in (take a moment to think why there is a person
> whose sole job in oporations is to decide how much drugs the sick guy need.
> C> How are you going to deliver this magic drug?
> Electrical shock guns are very bad, energy consumtion, missed shots, and
> energy levels (same problem as tranquilaizer gun)
>
> Other methods are just as troublesome, rubber bullets are too often lethal
> too be really useful, but they are the best at the moment.
>
> Beside, a criminal that have a gun, with guns that have non-lethal weapons,
> have *much* greater incentive to shot his way out of a tough corner, the
> cops can't kill him, after all.
But the fire-arms of the Cops had almost no effect on the bank-robbers
with full body-armour (and AK-47s) in LA a couple of years ago, they had
to wait for the SWAT team to kill them. Nor did they do anything to stop
that guy with the tank.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Bill Gates and Michael Dell
Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2001 18:26:28 +0100
Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Lars Träger wrote:
> >
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > A properly working OS will prevent the crashing app from corrupting the
> > > rest of the system.
> >
> > So some versions/distributions of Linux are not a properly working OS.
> >
>
> But UNLIKE Windows, those linux distributions are PROPERLY labelled as
> 'development' versions....NOT "ready for prime time" like M$ does.
Suse 6.0 is not labled a "development version", more importantly it
isn't. Still I know of one app that has a bug which will kill the system
a few minutes after it is encountered (and the app isn't killed by
hand). Ready for prime time my ass.
Lars T.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:31:04 +0000
> The GPL creates restrictions for redistribution. The BSDL has no such
> restrictions, other than giving credit. The restrictions for GPL
BUT it allows for further restrictions ot be introduced.
> redistribution can be having to give your work away, in the same way
> that restrictions for commecial redistribution can be to give money
> away. For commecial purposes, money is equivalent in many ways to
> work-time or work-product.
> Free software doesn't constrain the freedom of those who redistribute
> code. It doesnt add conditions or create additional requirements
> (including payment of money or code.)
Neither does it constrain the freedom of the recipients, but if someone
gets something under the BSDL and distributes it under the EPL, the
recipient has restrictions, not freedom.
> For example, for fun, link a GPLed library with your own code. The
> entire work becomes redistribution encumbered (you must be able to
> provide source code), especially if there is no other GPLed library with
> the same interface. Not only is the GPL a restrictive license, but it
> invokes the much hated interface copyright concept (per RMS.)
Most libraries are under the LGPL, which was invented to prevent EPL's
apps having to give away the source.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:33:10 +0000
>> About those constraints: I have a right to free speech, it's in my
>> country's constitution. However this right is constrained by libel and
>> slander laws.
>>
> You have a right to write software, it's in my country's constitution.
> There are libel law restrictions (but seldom encountered in software.)
> Using the most severe commercial license doesn't impact upon your
> freedom to write software.
You are from the US. According to the letest spate of laws or rulings or
whatever, source code does not seem to be considered an expression of
free speech.
-Ed
--
| u98ejr
| @
This argument is a beta version. | eng.ox
| .ac.uk
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:40:42 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 28 Feb 2001 02:33:23
>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:58:24 -0700, Dave wrote:
>>On 27 Feb 2001 08:25:34 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
>>wrote:
>
>>It's not my intent to belittle their work. I'm simply comparing what
>>it cost to develop linux all the way to its current state, to the
>>"$100M to billions" that Eric claims MS needs for "minor
>>enhancements". Even if the linux kernel contributors had been paid
>>from the beginning, I doubt their entire development effort would come
>>anywhere near $10M, let alone $100M.
>
>The package deal that's called "Windows" is not comparable to the Linux
>kernel. The closest approximation would be the kernel, X11, Qt,
>KDE (libs, support, utils, base), glibc, and libstdc++. [...]
And so castles made of sand melt into the sea eventually.
My point is that, from all appearances (and certainly a comparison to
the GNU tools such as you've made), Windows is a piece of crap, so how
much money they spent on it is hardly important, as it is obvious that
the bulk of it was wasted.
--
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,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:40:43 GMT
Said cat < nonsense > cola in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 27 Feb 2001
>> > You all are missing my point. Microsoft was almost giving away the
>> > office products a few years ago. Now they're gouging you for it.
>> > Monopoly power.
>>
>> That was my point.
>
>I'm a little confused here. When exactly was Microsoft "almost giving away "
>the office products?
When they were forcing OEMs to bundle it by threatening their Windows
licenses, dumping it by using monopoly revenues to subsidize it, and
further ensuring that consumers never saw the price tag for it, no
matter what it was. So if you got a new PC, you got Office; that's
"almost giving away", if you innocently presume it isn't monopolization.
>And if you can provide the when, can you also provide the price? Since you
>have used 'you' as the gouge-e, I'm assuming that OEM's aren't in this set
>of those being gouged.
This is the same damn problem that so confabulated the appellate court;
is the OEM Microsoft's customers, or the OEMs? The fact is that MS uses
this duplicitous argument to alternately screw them both, when a
consistent argument that their "true" customer is either makes their
monopolization apparent. Yet the confusion itself is enough to confound
justice.
>A few years ago, by my use of 'few', would equate to
>the release of office 97. MS wasn't giving this product away by any stretch.
>I should know, I purchased it.
Well, I purchased Netscape Navigator, years ago, so I guess that means
that Netscape never gave away their product, since they didn't give it
to me.
>Office 2000, the current version, is
>comparably priced to the previous version. So, I have to ask, just what the
>hell are you all arguing about? When was ms giving their cash cow (office)
>away?
MS doesn't separate either the expenses or the profits of one product
line from another. In fact, they don't have separate products; merely
one monopoly which they attempt to extend in many ways.
--
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.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New Microsoft Ad :-)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:40:44 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:36:34
[...]
>As an aside, I don't know why NIC card manufacturers haven't put a
>machanism on the crads to detect an unplugged cable. It shouldn't be too
>hard since when plugged in, the cable is plugged in to a matched load, so
>no reflections occur. When it is unplugged, the signals should get
>reflected, which should not be too hard to detect.
And loads more convinient than using the photon substrate ocular
continuity indication already built into the system (look at it.)
Actually, all NIC cards [sic] (Enet NICs, anyway) do have such a
feature. But it only works when the thing its plugged in to on the
other end is powered up. Its called the "link status indicator"; a
little green light. That light on the back of the NIC will only be
illuminated if both ends are plugged in, because the way it works is
this:
If any signal is recieved, the light will be lit; link status is good.
If no signal is received, the light will not be lit; link status is bad.
In the absence of signal being sent, the hub (and the card) sends a
*link_test_pulse* every 100 ms, IIRC.
It is only the *receive* side that's tested; the hub _may_ have a
similar light to test the host's transmit side (the hub's recieve
leads). The hub is not required, as the cards are, to provide this
indication, but only a fool would buy a hub without this feature.
Not quite as powerful as a TDR test, but about a thousand times cheaper,
too. ;-)
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Donovan Rebbechi)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Date: 3 Mar 2001 17:46:44 GMT
On Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:40:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 28 Feb 2001 02:33:23
>>On Tue, 27 Feb 2001 15:58:24 -0700, Dave wrote:
>My point is that, from all appearances (and certainly a comparison to
>the GNU tools such as you've made), Windows is a piece of crap, so how
>much money they spent on it is hardly important, as it is obvious that
>the bulk of it was wasted.
A subjective judgement (but one I happen to agree with in my own subjective
way)
BTW, I remember you were going to install Linux. How did it go ?
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi * http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/ *
elflord at panix dot com
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:50:03 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 1 Mar 2001 12:38:31 -0500;
>Say it aint so.
>You mean people can change their OS even if Windows is pre-installed??
>Doesn't that fly in the face of the (failed) "monopoly" courtroom
>competition strategy that Microsoft's competition was banking on?
Welcome back, stupid.
Make up your mind; are you talking about economics or law? Either way,
your statement is embarrassingly flawed: that people *don't* change
their OS is a fact, that MS makes it as difficult as possible is also a
fact, that they purposefully raised the application barrier is still
another fact.
Microsoft doesn't compete, so it doesn't have any competition. Which is
why they're "competing in court", desperately hoping to avoid justice
yet again, because they are as well aware as everyone else that if they
didn't monopolize, the competition would eat them for brunch.
--
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: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:50:43 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 1 Mar 2001 14:22:28 -0500;
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:97m59m$sa9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS PL" <js@plcom> wrote:
>>
>> > Say it aint so. You mean people can change their OS even if Windows is
>> > pre-installed?? Doesn't that fly in the face of the (failed) "monopoly"
>> > courtroom competition strategy that Microsoft's competition was banking
>> > on?
>>
>> Absoloutely not! Whether they use windows or not they STILL have to pay
>> for it. How could anything *but* a monopoly manage to enforce that?
>
>And whether they use the other 1gb of apps that also get put into the master
>disk of their OEM system they still pay for them.[...]
What a pathetically bad attempt to stretch a point.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: [OT] .sig
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:53:38 GMT
CBFalconer wrote:
<snip>
> If he has done that he has committed an overt act that makes him
> subject to being locked up. He has long been plonked here.
> People and authorities are quite touchy about that sort of threat
> after some of the recent experiences.
Check out this precious little Kulkis gem:
<kulkis gem>
Tim Hanson wrote:
>
> mlw wrote:
> >
> > Tim Hanson wrote:
> > >
> > > No doubt Allchin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) knows full well what he's
> > > doing. He's extracting a little mileage out of Napster concerns to
> > > equate open source software to stealing songs over the 'net. I'm
sure
> > > he and his cronies are having a laugh over the gullibility of that
> > > interviewer (and at how angry they made Linux advocates) now.
> > >
> > > These are evil people. Really down there.
> >
> > That is something that concerns me. Microsoft is "evil" but not because
it
> > intends to do wrong, but it intends to do without regard, and sometimes
to the
> > spite, of others.
> >
> > Looking back, M$ was once the little guy, and we cheered it on because
we
> > thought it would change things. It has become Fidel Castro, using past
> > revolutionary glory to hide its crimes and be the "establishment." Meet
the new
> > boss, same as the old boss. Perhaps we should have chosen CP/M, maybe
Kildal
> > would have conducted business with just a few more scruples.
>
> I like your analogy.
>
> What we could have used was a more competitively balanced growth
> pattern, without the tyranny of one vendor, but the fact is that Gates
> is the perfect monopolist and for now that covers his immaturity and
> lack of sound business skills. People like Allchin are just soldiers.
>
> It all comes back to Gates. It's his company, regardless of
> title-of-the-month. I suppose the damning thing about him is that he's
> amoral.
Just one well-directed 155-grain piece of copper-sheathed lead can
change all of that.
>
> --
> It's is not, it isn't ain't, and it's it's, not its, if you mean it
> is. If you don't, it's its. Then too, it's hers. It isn't her's. It
> isn't our's either. It's ours, and likewise yours and theirs.
> -- Oxford University Press, Edpress News
--
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.
</kulkis gem>
But don't take my word for it, read it for yourself in the
"Microsoft seeks government help to stop Linux"
thread on comp.os.linux.advocacy. After reading that I knew it was a
matter of time before I plonked him.
--
Happy Trails!
-Brent
http://rotten168.home.att.net
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:56:22 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 01 Mar 2001 22:16:37
>>> > Say it aint so. You mean people can change their OS even if
Windows
>>> > is pre-installed?? Doesn't that fly in the face of the (failed)
>>> > "monopoly" courtroom competition strategy that Microsoft's
>>> > competition was banking on?
>>>
>>> Absoloutely not! Whether they use windows or not they STILL have to pay
>>> for it. How could anything *but* a monopoly manage to enforce that?
>>
>> And whether they use the other 1gb of apps that also get put into the
>> master disk of their OEM system they still pay for them. I don't see
>> anyone whining about being forced to pay for any other software the
>> system comes with the system.
>
>
>I quit buying computers from big retailers to avoid the Microsoft Tax
>(forced Windows purchace). To be quite frany, most of the other apps that
>they often force on the user aren't worth the disk space.
>
>Anyway, this was in relation to thinkpads. What software do they come
>with that you are forced to buy, with the exception of windows?
>
>
>> That's the biggest complaint I ever hear
>> from people is, how do I get rid of all this junk that came with my
>> computer?? Half of it doesn't even show up in appwiz.cpl to get
>removed.
>
>
>> If and OEM disk of Win98 costs
>> $40.00 per unit but a basic set of apps ups the price of same disk to
>> $80.00, who's whining about the additional 40 bucks for encyclopedia
>> ect...
>
>Me. I stopped paying for all that crap.
>
>> Last time I heard Best Buy charged the same whether or not you took the
>> million apps home with the system.
>
>I'll take your word for this.
>
>> Go on down to best buy, pick out a computer and ask what discount you
>> get if you use your own copy of Quicken Lite.
>
>Microsoft isn't the only company out ther ripping off the comsumer. Seems
>like Best Buy are too.
Nonsense; JS/PL's ability to build empty arguments is evident here.
Best Buy is a *retailer*.
In the case of JS/PL, who is, AFAIK, potentially yet another ignorant
sock-puppet, this is merely silly and dishonest trolling on Usenet.
Unfortunately, this kind of "baffle them with bullshit as you've no
other choice" is the same type of confusion that has so confounded
justice for more than a decade. Those familiar with classic economics
all too often simply fail utterly to grasp the nature of software; those
who understand software but understand also the desire to treat it like
any other product also have a difficult time. And, unfortunately, those
who most understand the true nature of software and are not willing to
compromise it, such as RMS and the GNU project, have a very difficult
time being understood by those in the previous two groups.
--
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: NT vs *nix performance
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 03 Mar 2001 17:58:41 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 1 Mar 2001 23:25:43 -0500;
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:97mhp3$81u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > Say it aint so. You mean people can change their OS even if Windows
>> >> > is pre-installed?? Doesn't that fly in the face of the (failed)
>> >> > "monopoly" courtroom competition strategy that Microsoft's
>> >> > competition was banking on?
>> >>
>> >> Absoloutely not! Whether they use windows or not they STILL have to pay
>> >> for it. How could anything *but* a monopoly manage to enforce that?
>> >
>> > And whether they use the other 1gb of apps that also get put into the
>> > master disk of their OEM system they still pay for them. I don't see
>> > anyone whining about being forced to pay for any other software the
>> > system comes with the system.
>>
>>
>> I quit buying computers from big retailers to avoid the Microsoft Tax
>> (forced Windows purchace). To be quite frany, most of the other apps that
>> they often force on the user aren't worth the disk space.
>>
>> Anyway, this was in relation to thinkpads. What software do they come
>> with that you are forced to buy, with the exception of windows?
>>
>>
>> > That's the biggest complaint I ever hear
>> > from people is, how do I get rid of all this junk that came with my
>> > computer?? Half of it doesn't even show up in appwiz.cpl to get
>> removed.
>>
>>
>> > If and OEM disk of Win98 costs
>> > $40.00 per unit but a basic set of apps ups the price of same disk to
>> > $80.00, who's whining about the additional 40 bucks for encyclopedia
>> > ect...
>>
>> Me. I stopped paying for all that crap.
>>
>> > Last time I heard Best Buy charged the same whether or not you took the
>> > million apps home with the system.
>>
>> I'll take your word for this.
>>
>> > Go on down to best buy, pick out a computer and ask what discount you
>> > get if you use your own copy of Quicken Lite.
>>
>> Microsoft isn't the only company out ther ripping off the comsumer. Seems
>> like Best Buy are too.
>
>Well it seems all of you whining about the microsoft tax are missing the
>whole point so I'll spell it out to you.
> It is not anyones right to demand that a certain product be supplied to
>them. And that's the whole gaping flaw in the argument. A while back some
>morons came up with some kind of idea that it was their right to get a
>refund on windows portion of a system if they didn't load the software. They
>soon found out they had only the right to either buy, or not buy a package
>that someone decided they would like to sell.
>You have two choices, buy what someone decides to sell you, or don't. That's
>the rules of the game. Get over it.
>
What's really funny is that, AFAIK, I'm the one who actually explained
this to you.
What's pathetic is your mischaracterizing someone being forced to buy
something they have no need for as being its inverse; a right to demand
that a certain product be supplied.
Lame.
--
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
******************************
