Linux-Advocacy Digest #801, Volume #32 Wed, 14 Mar 01 14:13:07 EST
Contents:
Re: Microsoft announces support for Linux! ("Edwin")
Interesting Quote from Rach in uk.singles (Woof)
Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"! (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Rach, Come suck my dong (Leonardo De Caprio)
Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses! ("Edwin")
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("LShaping")
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Matthias Warkus)
Re: Macintosh as an alternative to Windows?? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("Scot Mc Pherson")
Re: .Net to run on Linux ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: .Net to run on Linux (Perry Pip)
Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation ("Scot Mc Pherson")
Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows... (Wayne Holland)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Edwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft announces support for Linux!
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:12:06 -0600
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Those boneheads finally did it!
>
> They are announcing support for Linux.
>
> http://www.infoworld.com/articles/hn/xml/01/03/13/010313hnnonms.xml
>
> Charlie
So Microsoft has a way to dominate the computer market, even if you don't
use an OS from them, and a way to migrate people to Windows? I'm
literally weeping with joy. :-P
Edwin
------------------------------
From: Woof <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Interesting Quote from Rach in uk.singles
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:14:48 GMT
I saw this interesting quote from rach on uk.singles and i thought id
share it with you all.
"Hi, I Rach! Im looking for a man to have sex with, doesnt matter if you
ugly cos i am too. As long as you have a cock i will shag it. Ill fuck
owt me. im a skanky manc"
So everyones views on Rach have no been confirmed, she is a slapper, we
dont need to comtemplate it any longer
woof da dawg
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Linux "Oopsie"!
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 08:39:16 -0000
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > I've never posted incorrect facts. What are you talking about?
>
> Yes you have. You claimed that GIMP sending PS to your printer was the
> wrong thing to do. I can't be bothered to dig up any more.
No I haven't. I said The Gimp was wrong in that it printed Postscript as
text on my printer. The way that it was wrong was that it ignored a
system wide configuration setting and did its own thing. As I said
before, you're not listening.
> > Hmmm... I'd have thought an OS designer would want the most efficient
> > drivers in the OS, not an application.
>
> You have no understanding of these things.
Really.
I write Device Drivers for a living.
Still think I have no understanding for these things?
> It is not possible to get a tool that is 100% efficient at everything.
> PS makes a pretty good attempt and is reaasonable efficient at most
> things whilst being device independent.
It's not used on low end printers, which is perhaps the majority of
printers out that. What does that tell you?
> So in conclusion, PS does a very good most of the time in most
> situations. If postscript is so bad, then point me to a much better
> solution.
It's not bad, but it is a fairly complex solution on a printer which
requires more intelligence etc. on the printer.
> > You can ignore them _after_ you got the wrong result.
>
> I have trouble following what you are saying at times.
You have trouble listening.
> Yopu were trying to make the point about GIMP printing PS when it
> shouldn't. By snipping all the bits about the other apps printing PS,
> you reversed the point opf my argument simply by snipping bits you
> didn't like. That is generally considered poor behaviour.
I'm not quite clear how I did that. It certainly wasn't intentional.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 08:44:21 -0000
In article <986g59$t6k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Absoloutely nothing of any use whatsoever.
>
> How about a rusty old bike wheel?
>
> Now let me guess. You're not willing to pay me £30 for something utterly
> useless are you. Bearing this thought in mind, reread the thread.
Bearing in mind Windows is _not_ absolutely useless, your comments are
worthless.
--
---
Pete Goodwin
All your no fly zone are belong to us
My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 19:17:22 +0200
"Stefaan A Eeckels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <98nt9s$hoc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> > "Stefaan A Eeckels" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> In article <98nnun$dc8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I have not checked the TCP spec, so I can't comment on it, but I would
say
> > that an unambiguous spec is very much like writing the algortim.
>
> And? An algorithm is not a program. If a spec isn't sufficiently
> complete and unambiguous to allow independent, competent developers
> to produce code that produces the required results, the spec is
> just not good enough.
Yeah, that is what I'm saying.
An algorithm is one step above a program, btw.
> >> Reference implementations are fine, but should not be the
> >> only implementation.
> >
> > I agree, but since BSD seems to be the best one around, I like its
license.
> > If the best implentation of a spec was GPL, it wouldn't be incorporated
into
> > commercial products, which sucks.
>
> Why does it suck? Is there some virtue in having one's code
> used by as many commercial systems as possible? Why do you
> want to kill the market for TCP/IP stacks ;-)
Code reuse? Someone wrote it, and decided that they don't want to money of
it, and then made sure that no one else could use it in a commercial
product, therefor limiting the scope of his code use.
I think that sucks.
I'm not talking about TCP/IP, I'm talking about other things.
> > The company that makes the software may be unable to invest time/money
in
> > writing the implentation themselves,
>
> Oh dear, how dreadful. Maybe they shouldn't be in that business
> if they can't hack it. These people don't have a God-given right
> to be in the software business, you know.
I don't agree with you on this. If a good implentation is already there,
supposedly free, then it should be be possible to incorporate it into other
products without changing their license.
GPV is a good term for GPL.
A much better license would say, do whatever you want with the code, but if
you make changes to the code, you must give it back.
Even LGPL isn't that free.
If I'm working on code released under OSI licenses for fun, I would release
the code back under the same terms. (If it ever gets to release state, that
is. Most doesn't, I lose interest when the challange is gone)
Because that is right & fair, I won't work on GPL software for fun. I don't
like being unable to use the code with any other license.
I don't see anything good in GPL, and even LGPL isn't nice, sometimes.
> > or will have to spend that money and leave other things, which
> > would make the product a better one.
>
> That's their problem. If you can't develop a decent product,
> you shouldn't be in business.
If you call something free, I should be able to take it and do whatever I
want with it.
Check the subject of this post.
It's not GPL vs. other OSI approved argument, it's an argument against GPL
being free.
> > And there is no gurantee that the implentation would be as good as the
GPLed
> > one.
>
> Which then will convince their potential customers to use the
> better product, and thus ensure that more software comes with
> source code included.
Indeed, but it also ensure the survival of GPV.
I don't like being force to do things I don't want to.
For this reason, I don't think GPL is free.
> Note that this is just as legimate a goal
> as "I want my software to run in as many boxes as possible", or
> "I want to reduce my development costs by using free software
> so I can better compete with idiots who're stupid enough to
> do the work themselves".
It's a legimate goal, yes, but that is not what the arguement is about, it's
about GPL being called free, which it isn't.
------------------------------
From: Leonardo De Caprio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Rach, Come suck my dong
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:27:16 GMT
I seen your web site gurl. i know you wanna
------------------------------
From: "Edwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Mindless suicide! Rediculous Dumbasses!
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 11:28:49 -0600
[soc.singles snipped from header]
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> That's the term fellow co-workers will be applying to the former IT
managers of
> the nation after they see you've recommend that next Microsoft Upgrade due
to
> Linux incompatibility within the office place.
>
>
> I give you evolution! Gnome's answer to the bloated useless, costly
windows
> with it's lousy office suite!
>
[snip]
>From the Evolution FAQ:
"My company uses Microsoft Exchange (or Lotus Notes). Will I be able to
replace my Windows machine with a Linux machine running Evolution? "
"We will support as many (useful) open protocols as we can, but the first
release will most likely not be able to interoperate with all of the
features of various closed proprietary systems. However, various people on
the mailing lists have been looking into this problem."
Edwin
------------------------------
From: "LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:22:10 GMT
"Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:eIMr6.243904$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > That is a principle which is easy to understand for a lot of things.
Any
> > more popular product is more scrutinized. Not sure how that argument
> > supports Linux over Windows. I do not advocate closed-doors secret
> > policies, and if opening Windows can be done, it might be a better
> solution
> > than a breakup (but the devil probably is in the enforcement, the
> government
> > amicus seem to favor a breakup). Like Orrin Hatch said, if we do not go
> for
> > enforecment now (such as a breakup), we will be in for heavy handed
> > government regulation later. I agree 100% with the open OS thing, since
> the
> > OS is the standard to which all applications are written. I sincerely
> hope
> > the appeals court will understand that.
>
> Well I wasn't really even thinking about opening windows and ie5, I was
> kinda of refering to the statement that Linux is a developer's sandbox and
> windows is a developer's real world. Although of course the end result of
> your development is scrutinized by the windows user community, your code
is
> not and so you can never really get any input on how to make the code more
> efficient. Forget about feature improvement, I mean code efficiency is
> probably the most difficient part of windows programming.
> Scot Mc Pherson
And my comment was about graphical user interfaces, not specifically about
Windows. The personal computer operating system will never be without a GUI
again. In the PC context, the text based interface is history. I do
efficiency to a fault. But besides requiring more system recourses, a GUI
(like any other code) can be done efficiently. As far as the applications
go, (not that it matters, but) I would not advocate open source applications
at all. The reason the OS needs to be open, or at least separated from the
applications makers, is because otherwise outside developers will be cut off
by the choke point OS monopoly holder as has been the case with Windows. I
wonder how much thought the prosecution gave to prohibiting the OS maker
from writing applications, or if they gave up that idea as being more
intrusive than a more simple, temporary breakup.
LShaping
> "LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:VsGr6.63857$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:iJwr6.242893$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > If a
> > > > > > programmer is not willing to venture into the real world of
modern
> > > > > > computing, then he will be left behind in the sand. I would
love
> to
> > > > > > have a more efficient operating system than Windows, but command
> > line
> > > > > > stuff is for the birds.
> > > > >
> > > > > This single sentence rules you out as an opponent worth of an
> answer.
> > > > > Thank you for your time.
> > > >
> > > > Does that mean I get the last word?
> > > > Yes!
> > >
> > > I think its absolutely amazing that people who advocate windows use
idea
> > of
> > > "venturing out into the real world" when they are advocating
> closed-doors
> > > secret policies where their activity is not scrutinized by anyone
except
> > the
> > > head con-troll-er.
> > > Does it every occur to these people that having your software
> scrutinized
> > by
> > > the "whole world" is just about as far into the real world as you can
> > > venture?
> > > Scot Mc Pherson
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matthias Warkus)
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 17:35:21 +0000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
It was the Sun, 11 Mar 2001 10:27:45 GMT...
...and Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[cat(1)]
> If I go look it up (which I didn't do with the thermometer) it tells me
> it 'concatenates' files. That's a fancy way of saying 'copy', isn't it.
Bullshit. cp(1) is for copying. cat(1) is for (con)catenating files.
Where's the problem?
OK, under DOS, you use COPY to catenate files. Rather
counter-intuitive. After all, usually one doesn't need a copier to put
some paper together in a folder, does one?
mawa
--
I'm spinning through the apartment like a whirling dervish, finishing
things I'd put off for months. These Methadrine suppositories are
fantastic!
-- Mark Lenyer: My Cousin, My Gastroenterologist
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Macintosh as an alternative to Windows??
Date: Thu, 15 Mar 2001 07:08:32 +1300
Then why did they continue to push WIndows 95? Wouldnt of it been better to
improve NT, and force, sorry, I meant "encourage" software companies to port
them code to the win32 api? The one thing I could never understand was why it
took Lotus to, after 5 years, finally make Lotus 123 32bit? Why after 5 years,
we still have toss pots out there wanting to run win16 and dos code and winge
when the new version of Windows (Windows XP) will not fully support their
applications , GET OVER IT, they are dead, get over it, make you software 32bit
and make everyones life easier. I think 5 years is definately long enough for
software companies to make their code 32bit, if you haven't done so, wtf have
you been for the last 5 years?
Matthew Gardiner
Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> Uhh.. no. NT Workstation was released at the same time as NT Server.
>
> I still have my RC1 of NT 3.1 Workstation dated July 1993.
>
> WIndows 95 was barely even a concept when NT was released, much less a
> "rollout plan".
>
> "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > I actually followed the roll out of Windows 95 and NT, and the concept was
> > going to be, have NT as the server OS, and have Windows 95 as the desktop
> OS,
> > reason why they wanted to push Windows 95 onto the desktop market was to
> allow
> > companies to continue to use their old, DOS/Win16 based apps whilst have
> the
> > potential to use 32bit applications once they were ready and selling.
> However,
> > what happened, corperatins chose to install a cut down version of NT
> server so
> > that they had the multi-user, security capabilities to stop employees from
> > fucking up computer settings. Microsoft bowed to corperate pressure and
> > released a NT Workstation version with those capabilities, hence, the
> split was
> > made.
> >
> > Matthew Gardiner
> >
> > Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > > "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > Don't you think 2001 and is a little late to finally be coming out
> with
> > > > > Pre-emptive multitasking, Memory protection, and full virtual
> memory?
> > > > >
> > > > > Cripes, Apple worked on their Next Generation OS (Copeland) for
> close to
> > > > > 10 years before finally giving up and admitting defeat that their
> > > > > programmers
> > > > > just couldn't "fix" the MacOS. They needed to start over from
> scratch.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Well, Apple in that case had the grace to give up. MS did not, they
> > > > stuffed Win9X unto the world.
> > >
> > > Win9X wasn't meant to "fix" windows. It was meant as a hack to move
> people
> > > to NT. It wasn't supposed to stick around this long, but MS decided to
> > > chase after the enterprise market which severely delayed the release of
> a
> > > consumer version of NT.
> > >
> > > You act like MS *WANTED* there to be a Windows 95. They didn't. They
> would
> > > have much rather had you switch to NT back in 93 than maintain two OS's
> for
> > > another 8 years.
> >
------------------------------
From: "Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:12:15 GMT
Yeah I don't know...I am not sure why open source applications are a bad
idea. I mean, bind, inn, apache and most of linux native system software is
mostly FSF GNU or open source software anyway. Why would the software be
choked because its open source? Once the mass populace becomes more
comfortable with the "choices" people will start buying/using software based
on its merit, not on what a company like M$ markets.
Although the masses are still pretty entrenched in proprietary software,
there is an increase in the open source movement which is not increasing
parallel to the growing industry, but is exceeding the curve. That means
that a higher % of total global users are moving to the open source
community for if not their total needs, at least for a great majority of
their needs.
You are right about the gui. A gui uses an aweful amount of resources and
will continue to use lots of resources. Even a barebones xserver still will
be the single largest resource consuming process on a gnu/linux system. They
can get more efficient, but they will still be resource hogs. On my lite
servers, I have the gnome desktop installed, but I only start the xserver
when it is needed, being that I am not required to use it since I am just as
if not more comfortable with a terminal for sysadmin stuff. Sometimes though
it't nice to have concurrent multiple terminals displayed side by side. As I
said, on my lite server, unless I am doing something gui specific, it is not
running. Everyone has this option.
--
Scot Mc Pherson
N27° 19' 56"
W82° 30' 39"
"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6NNr6.56410$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:eIMr6.243904$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > That is a principle which is easy to understand for a lot of things.
> Any
> > > more popular product is more scrutinized. Not sure how that argument
> > > supports Linux over Windows. I do not advocate closed-doors secret
> > > policies, and if opening Windows can be done, it might be a better
> > solution
> > > than a breakup (but the devil probably is in the enforcement, the
> > government
> > > amicus seem to favor a breakup). Like Orrin Hatch said, if we do not
go
> > for
> > > enforecment now (such as a breakup), we will be in for heavy handed
> > > government regulation later. I agree 100% with the open OS thing,
since
> > the
> > > OS is the standard to which all applications are written. I sincerely
> > hope
> > > the appeals court will understand that.
> >
> > Well I wasn't really even thinking about opening windows and ie5, I was
> > kinda of refering to the statement that Linux is a developer's sandbox
and
> > windows is a developer's real world. Although of course the end result
of
> > your development is scrutinized by the windows user community, your code
> is
> > not and so you can never really get any input on how to make the code
more
> > efficient. Forget about feature improvement, I mean code efficiency is
> > probably the most difficient part of windows programming.
> > Scot Mc Pherson
>
> And my comment was about graphical user interfaces, not specifically about
> Windows. The personal computer operating system will never be without a
GUI
> again. In the PC context, the text based interface is history. I do
> efficiency to a fault. But besides requiring more system recourses, a GUI
> (like any other code) can be done efficiently. As far as the applications
> go, (not that it matters, but) I would not advocate open source
applications
> at all. The reason the OS needs to be open, or at least separated from
the
> applications makers, is because otherwise outside developers will be cut
off
> by the choke point OS monopoly holder as has been the case with Windows.
I
> wonder how much thought the prosecution gave to prohibiting the OS maker
> from writing applications, or if they gave up that idea as being more
> intrusive than a more simple, temporary breakup.
> LShaping
>
>
>
>
>
> > "LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:VsGr6.63857$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > > "Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:iJwr6.242893$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > If a
> > > > > > > programmer is not willing to venture into the real world of
> modern
> > > > > > > computing, then he will be left behind in the sand. I would
> love
> > to
> > > > > > > have a more efficient operating system than Windows, but
command
> > > line
> > > > > > > stuff is for the birds.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This single sentence rules you out as an opponent worth of an
> > answer.
> > > > > > Thank you for your time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does that mean I get the last word?
> > > > > Yes!
> > > >
> > > > I think its absolutely amazing that people who advocate windows use
> idea
> > > of
> > > > "venturing out into the real world" when they are advocating
> > closed-doors
> > > > secret policies where their activity is not scrutinized by anyone
> except
> > > the
> > > > head con-troll-er.
> > > > Does it every occur to these people that having your software
> > scrutinized
> > > by
> > > > the "whole world" is just about as far into the real world as you
can
> > > > venture?
> > > > Scot Mc Pherson
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: .Net to run on Linux
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:00:39 +0200
"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > "J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > > Given microsoft's track record, one would have to be
> > > quite gullible to expect solid support from microsoft for
> > > a non microsoft platform. If .net were actually to become
> > > popular, ms would use it as a weapon against non ms
> > > operating systems, just as they use ms office now.
> > >
> > > They might well release some partial support for non
> > > ms operating systems, but they will counsel users to
> > > "migrate to windows" for best results, and they will of
> > > course also be poised to pull the rug out from under
> > > your platform of choice the moment it will benefit them
> > > to do so.
>
> > What does the word open standard says to you?
>
> > You don't like MS implentation
> > on Linux, *make your own*.
>
> The whole point is, do we even want to start down that road,
> i.e. following ms and letting them call the shots? Better to
> ignore .net and let nature take it's course, rather than lending
> the energy and momentum of the Linux to the microsoft cause.
MS wants all the new application to be build against .NET
If Linux can run .NET applications, then MS has broken the application
barrier. (Bye, Bye, wine, I'm no longer an alcoholist :-) )
You could run Office XP (or its viewers) on Linux, now, isn't that nice?
> Yes, the Linux community will no doubt create something that
> will talk to .net, but to make it anything more than just another
> peripheral capability would be a grave mistake. It will never
> be the main focus.
No, it will.
MS is going to release all their new products for .NET, a lot of other
people are going to do the same.
You are going to make Linux unable to run those, when it can be done
(reliatively) simply?
.NET has its advantages, why deprive Linux from them?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.linux.sux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: .Net to run on Linux
Date: 14 Mar 2001 18:15:50 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:16:59 +0200,
Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On the server side only. MS realizes they have to support .NET for
>> Unix servers for .NET to have any chance at all at success since *nix
>> is still 3/4 of the web server market. You be sure only one client
^^^
>> will be supported.
>
>And if they don't supply a client,
That's not what I said. Can you read??
There will be one client, preinstalled by the OEM's they control on
all client machines...and all the protocols will be proprietary. In order to
pull this off, they must support *nix on the server side since that is
the majority of server.
Of course, *nix admins already know that the *nix version of .NET server
will be full of security holes and won't fall for it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: How Microsoft Crushes the Hearts of Trolls.
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 20:12:42 +0200
"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6NNr6.56410$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I wonder how much thought the prosecution gave to prohibiting the OS maker
> from writing applications, or if they gave up that idea as being more
> intrusive than a more simple, temporary breakup.
How do you determain what is an application and what is the OS?
According to you, GUI is mandatory for a desktop OS.
But is a shell (windows manager, might be more fitting here, though)
required?
What about command line interface? What would you include there?
Where do you put the line between what is an OS and what is an application?
Is a browser mandatory?
An email program?
A calculator?
A text editor?
A CD Player?
A word proccessor?
A web server?
Where do you draw the line, exactly?
------------------------------
From: "Scot Mc Pherson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windoze Domination/Damnation
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:36:35 GMT
"Pete Goodwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <986g59$t6k$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
> > Absoloutely nothing of any use whatsoever.
> >
> > How about a rusty old bike wheel?
> >
> > Now let me guess. You're not willing to pay me £30 for something utterly
> > useless are you. Bearing this thought in mind, reread the thread.
>
> Bearing in mind Windows is _not_ absolutely useless, your comments are
> worthless.
You are right...All the best games run in Windows.
--
Scot Mc Pherson
N27° 19' 56"
W82° 30' 39"
> --
> ---
> Pete Goodwin
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
> My opinions are my own
------------------------------
From: Wayne Holland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sometimes, when I run Windows...
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 10:42:09 -0800
Nick Condon wrote:
>
> Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> >> Now let me see.
> >>
> >> 'cat'
> >>
> >> Wassat? A kitty?
> >
> >Powerpoint. What's that? Something I plug the kettle in to? Hey. My
> >computer has a powerpoint. Why can't I plug my kettle in to it?
>
> LOL! That's funny.
>
> --
> Nick
LOL! Reminds me of a post in alt.solaris.x86 ng. A college student
was belly-aching about how Solaris install burned up his new computer.
He had plugged in a microwave oven on his computer power outlet that was
designed for the monitor. Was popping popcorn while doing an install!
He said that "Smoke came pouring out the power supply fan vent!"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
