Linux-Advocacy Digest #61, Volume #34 Mon, 30 Apr 01 16:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why do Win advocates suck? Part 1 ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Wintrol Song (a great laugh) ("MH")
Re: IE ("Michael Pye")
Re: Communism
Re: OEM Windows licenses not transferable to charities (Dave Martel)
Re: Microsoft and McCartheism (Dave Martel)
Re: Communism (theRadical)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft and McCartheism (.)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why do Win advocates suck? Part 1
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:49:07 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cgl9i$31b$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > First off, Sparky, the above statement had absolutely nothing to do with
> > MS nor BG. Linux developers are trying to capture a market whose users,
> > for the most part, don't know their heads from their asses when it comes
> > to how an OS works. Like as not, Linux has to be "dumbed down"
> > considerably for these people or it won't go anywhere near corporate
> > desktops. The next time you go to work, (assuming of course this isn't
> > at McDonalds), take a look at the receptionist or secretary and ask
> > yourself,
> > "Does this person know dick about setting ULIMITS and would I trust her
> > to
> > fire up vi and configure accelerated-X?"
> >
> > What is being argued here is the need for sane defaults on an initial
> > installation.
> >
> > Idiot...
>
> Before using insults, think carefully.
>
> The next time you go to work, (assuming of course this isn't
> at McDonalds), take a look at the receptionist or secretary and ask
> yourself,
> "Does this person have any idea how to install Win2K. Would they know
> what to do with a driver disk? Could they put the IP address in to the
> computer. Would the yknow how to resolve an IRQ or DMA conflict?"
>
> The answer is no, to all of those for both Linux and Windows.
Unfortunately, the answer is no for a good number of so-called tech people.
Particularly where a non-Windows platform is concerned. Mandrake, as far as
distros go, is generally pretty good at setting sane defaults. The ULIMIT
issue is a case where they've failed to do this.
> That is why companies have trained staff to do that for the recptionists.
>
>
> Now, from a slightly fairer point of view.
>
> "Could the secretry click on the StarOffice icon on the GNOME desktop?"
> "Could that person select minesweeper or soletaire from the GNOME panel
> menu?"
>
>
> The answer is yes. Assuming a corporate environment where the seting up
> is done by experts, there is no real barrier except the inability to read
> Word documents prefectly.
And, unfortunately, the younger "admins" and "experts" among us were weaned
on a platform that makes most in-depth decisions for them and are prone to
making major mistakes when setting up an OS that doesn't hold their hand.
Distro makers do need to take that into account and set conservative
defaults. They do need to avoid going as far as Windows did in that area,
though.
Please pardon the earlier rhetoric, but, I do not take kindly to having the
epitath "MS-Freak" hurled in my direction simply because I find fault with a
Linux distribution. Particularly after having a bad day programming for that
cursed platform.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:06:26 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>>>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 27 Apr 2001
>>>>>>> On Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:55:56 GMT, T. Max Devlin
>>>>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>>> So any random arrangement of code will support any API you imagine?
>>>>>>>> Somehow, this doesn't seem like its going to work. Somehow, I think the
>>>>>>>> implementation details are related to the API, if it is written first,
>>>>>>>> and the API reflects some of the implementation details, if it is
>>>>>>>> documented last. In other words, an API is a sketch of the facade, not
>>>>>>>> an architectural diagram, however complex that facade may be, and
>>>>>>>> however it may limited where the beams can or must go.
>>>>>> T. Max, implementation has rarely anything to do with the API.
>>>>> Obviously, this statement would require some rather tortuously
>>>>> restricted sense of "having to do with".
>>>>
>>>>Not at all. You're just too ignorant to know reality.
>>>
>>> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>>>
>>>>>> Consider this code:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> How do I implement this system is irrelevent.
>>>>> Then how is it that you have written code to implement it?
>>>>
>>>>He hasn't. He's written the API for it. It's definitely not
>>>>implemented.
>>>
>>> Well, it looked like code to me, and he said "consider this code:".
>>> What does that say to you?
>>
>>That you don't know anything about programming. A declaration
>>is not an implementation, just a formal definition of the
>>class. It tells you the name, the class(es) it's derived
>>from, and the members of the class (variables and methods).
>>It is certainly possible to have many implemenations of
>>such a declaration.
>
> So what's the point? "That I don't know anything" is bullshit rhetoric,
> not a point. You can save your insults for someone who gives a crap
> about your opinion, thanks.
It's a statement of fact. I'm puzzled why you consider it
an insult. I know nothing about medecine, and I have no
problems admitting it.
>
> [...]
>>In the real world, the only time an application needs to know
>>anything about the entrails of the functions it calls, is when
>>the function has been
>>a) badly designed and/or implemented
>>b) badly documented.
>
> Well, in the real world, there is no such thing as bug free software, so
> I'm afraid we've just proven my point, yet again.
Totally besides the point. Bugs aren't a symptom of a
bad design, or a bad implementation.
>>I've been writing code for UNIX since 1980, and I've _never_
>>had to know anything about the system libraries that wasn't
>>in the man pages.
>
> Yet you've never written a program for a library that doesn't exist
> based only on an API, either, have you? I mean, not one that didn't
> turn out to be
> A) badly designed and/or implemented
> b) incompatible with the code of the library, even if it is
> theoretically correct for the API
Sorry to shatter your illusions, but I've
a) written programs that used a library that I had no access to,
and that I tested _after_ writing the code using a set of
stubs I also wrote. It was tested and proved to work correctly
when the company finally took delivery of the real software
(BEA's Tuxedo). Both the program and the stubs were based
solely on the Tuxedo docs (those for version 4 are hardly
high quality, I can tell you).
b) written drivers that implemented a wire protocol that existed
_only_ as a spec. Granted, that's not a library, but it's
an example of writing software that conforms to a non-existing
facility. What actually happened was that we designed a
protocol (HDLC-like), a colleague wrote the 'C' implementation
for a UNIX box, and I implemented it in 8080 and Z8000 assembler
for the POS terminals.
c) worked on large projects where implementation of the libraries
and the programs proceded in parallel, after the completion of
a formal design process. The programming standards even required
the application developers to test their programs against stubs,
to ensure the adherence to the design documents. If the program
passed the stub test, but failed when run against the library,
the author of the library had to modify his code if it turned
out to be non-conforming.
Please stop blathering about something you don't know. It's not
a shame to be ignorant, as long as you're prepared to listen and
learn. I'm not inventing the cases I mentioned above, and I'm
quite prepared to back them up with documentary evidence.
> Whether it is one or the other, I suggest would be determined by whether
> you are trying to insult someone else, or make excuses for your own
> failures.
>
> [...]
>>Well, one of my colleagues is writing an application to a Java
>>.jar that's not yet implemented (I finished the spec, he started
>>on his application after about the third draft, when we felt it
>>was stable enough). I'll have the classes implemented when he'll
>>start testing. Hint: writing a program != coding. There's a lot
>>to do before the first line of code is written, or before the
>>first test is run.
>
> That's like saying "writing a book != authoring", and illustrates
> clearly why everyone gets so confused by software copyright.
You were clearly confused by the word "code". One can write a
specification in a formal language, and call it "code", yet
not have an implementation, even though the "code" one has
written can be compiled. The actual writing of the 'C' or
C++ or Java or VB or Pascal or COBOL or FORTRAN lines of code
is a relatively minor part of the overall programming effort.
In multi-developer projects, it routinely happens that libraries
exist only in spec format, and that developers use stubs until
the real implementation becomes available.
And coding doesn't stand to program as authoring stands to
book. Coding is, as I said, just a small part of the process
that leads to a working executable, comparable to the act of
committing the book to paper. Authoring is the complete process
that includes research, character development, plot design,
writing the chapters, reviewing, etc. Because there's more
to authoring than putting words on paper, authors like Jerry
Pournelle and Larry Niven can write a book together, putting
alternate chapters on paper (or file :-).
--
Stefaan
--
How's it supposed to get the respect of management if you've got just
one guy working on the project? It's much more impressive to have a
battery of programmers slaving away. -- Jeffrey Hobbs (comp.lang.tcl)
------------------------------
From: "MH" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Wintrol Song (a great laugh)
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:06:37 GMT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cjo0d$e64rm$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> THE OFFICIAL WINTROL SONG (To the melody of "I'm a lumber Jack and I'm OK
> (Monty Python))
[juvenile cacophonous drivel snipped for the sake of sanity]
As J. Gleason would guffaw:
hardy - har har
------------------------------
From: "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:02:00 +0100
"Neil Cerutti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> It loaded really fast. Given the way it looks from Lynx, I'd say
> you used CSS styles for headings instead of the proper HTML tags,
> because your headings all meld into the text.
>
> It looks very nice in Opera, but with CSS turned off it has the
> same problem as Lynx.
>
> I thinks it's OK to change the <H1>...<H4> styles, but I
> think you should still *use* them. Creating your own "tags" using
> CSS isn't a good idea.
But you can't get them to default to spanning the entire width as they
should...
Creating my own tags is a favourite pass time, people can turn off the CSS
if they want, but it always seemed like a silly idea to me... ;)
Also, it is safer to do it that way than to redefine them because different
browsers have different ideas about which of the original properties should
be changed and which should stay. If you apply the CSS to a <div> or <span>
then you know exactly where you started and what you are going to do...
Admittedly there might be the issue with turning them off, but most people
don't even know how to do that even if they know you can or would want to...
It isn't really a suitable site for text only browsers, there is far too
much information to be presented in a console screen...
MP
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:12:19 GMT
>>>>> theRadical writes:
>>> > >> >You claimed that anyone who can't "prove" to your satisfaction that they
>>> > >> >need a weapon should have it confiscated.
>>> > >> i never said such a thing. you are lying. your conjecture is not
>>> > >> fact. otherwise, post the quote
>>> > >> right here --------->
>>> > Aaron> No need. Your reputations preceeds you.
>>> >Gee, what a surprise, Mr. Kulkis fails to back his words
>>> >(for the record, I have no idea if he was correct here,
>>> >I am just pointing out an example of his consistent failure
>>> >to back up his statements).
>>> for the record, since i believe in various forms of gun control,
>>> kulkis believes i am a fascists who wants to confiscate every gun i
>>> america.
>> Every law-abiding citizen without mental problems should be able to
>> have as many guns as they want.
theRadical> it isn't so much the quantity as it is the type you lying fucking gun
theRadical> nut.
What types do you think should be regulated? Why?
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: OEM Windows licenses not transferable to charities
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:04:06 -0600
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 11:54:55 -0500, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>To my knowledge (and my OEM license doesn't say so) MS does NOT void the
>liscense if you give a machine to charity. Just because someone writes it
>on a web site doesn't mean it's true.
>
>If it's not in the EULA, then it's not in the license.
Just because a wintroll says it ain't true doesn't mean it isn't,
either. We'll see if any linux people here can shed more light on the
author's statement.
Here's another good one. I haven't looked into the numbers but it's
fun to contemplate:
<http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/nightmare.html>
"Microsoft is widely thought to have no debt. This is very far from
the truth, but this debt, due to a loophole in GAP (Generally Accepted
Accounting Practices) is not on the books. It is, however, just as
real."
"Microsoft's debt is in the form of employee stock options. Through
most of its history, Microsoft has paid employees much less than other
companies, and made it up by issuing stock options. These options have
made many Microsoft employees very wealthy - on paper."
"The problem here is simple - eventually the stock options have to be
paid off in Microsoft stock. Should the value of that stock be in
decline, with little hope of recovering soon, employees who's options
are vested would be wise to exercise them and cash out. Microsoft has
barely enough cash reserves to cover that possibility."
"For a lot more material, including charts, check out the site of
financial analyst Bill Parish, particularly Microsoft Financial
Pyramid <http://www.billparish.com/msftfraudfacts.html>".
"In the recent Microsoft stock slide, the company had to do something
to keep this from happening. If they revalued the options, they would
greatly anger outside investors who have no such protection, but if
they didn't cover the loss in option value they could have a sell off,
causing further decline in stock value, absorbing their cash reserves,
and starting an exodus of key employees."
"Microsoft compensated for loss of options value by issuing a lot more
options to current option holders. While this staved off the immediate
problem, it creates even more long term exposure."
That Microsoft Financial Pyramid article has a lot of interesting
reading, too.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft and McCartheism
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 13:06:11 -0600
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:33:03 GMT, Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Chad Everett wrote:
>>
>> If you're not un-American, then you have nothing to hide.
>>
>> Microsoft wants you to name names:
>>
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/18589.html
>>
>> "While stopping just short of claiming that anyone buying
>> a PC without an OS is a de facto criminal, MS obviously
>> reckons that doing so would be outré enough to qualify
>> one for suspicion, or referral to a shrink. After all,
>> no sane person is going to muck up a perfectly good new box
>> with BeOS or Linux or something freaky like that. Right? ®"
>
>I'm getting a little sick of people posting anti-MS stories from the
>frigging Register. Everyone knows it's a biased site so it's usually
>irrelevant what they have to say. I personally don't pay attention to
>them.
>
>Please people, post from a sight other than the Register every once in a
>while.
The register's so much fun though! Those guys write more in the
flaming spirit of Usenet.
Whatever slant anyone puts on this story, there's still that
not-so-hidden threat that current MS customers who buy empty systems
so they can load them up with linux are risking the disruption and
possible expense of an MS audit of their Windows systems.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (theRadical)
Crossposted-To:
alt.society.liberalism,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:20:47 GMT
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:12:19 GMT, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>>>>>> theRadical writes:
>
> >>> > >> >You claimed that anyone who can't "prove" to your satisfaction that
>they
> >>> > >> >need a weapon should have it confiscated.
>
> >>> > >> i never said such a thing. you are lying. your conjecture is not
> >>> > >> fact. otherwise, post the quote
> >>> > >> right here --------->
>
> >>> > Aaron> No need. Your reputations preceeds you.
>
> >>> >Gee, what a surprise, Mr. Kulkis fails to back his words
> >>> >(for the record, I have no idea if he was correct here,
> >>> >I am just pointing out an example of his consistent failure
> >>> >to back up his statements).
>
> >>> for the record, since i believe in various forms of gun control,
> >>> kulkis believes i am a fascists who wants to confiscate every gun i
> >>> america.
>
> >> Every law-abiding citizen without mental problems should be able to
> >> have as many guns as they want.
>
> theRadical> it isn't so much the quantity as it is the type you lying fucking gun
> theRadical> nut.
>
>What types do you think should be regulated? Why?
i would be happy to discuss my gun control ideas with you. however,
this thread was not about gun issues until kulkis brought it up
because he was losing on other fronts. whenever he gets beat up, he
goes for what he believes is his strong suit.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:38:24 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
[...]
>Thanks for demonstrating your ignorance. (See below.)
Quit being a troll, goofball.
[...]
>It says that he wrote the specification. Perhaps the little bit of
>batch file putzing that you've done hasn't introduce you into the
>concept of a specification separate from the implementation. This is
>quite common in C++ and in various other languages (Ada, PL/SQL, etc.).
>Yes, you write some code; no, it isn't functional without a body (the
>implementation). It's an API to the functions within that package.
No, it is documentation for the API to the functions within that
package. Get over your abstraction error, and get back to me.
[...]
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:38:28 GMT
Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001 20:53:14 -0400;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> JS PL will never get the picture; it's a matter of his pride and dignity
>> at this point. He's the kind of guy who is compelled to yell "jealousy"
>> whenever anyone even mentions that Bill Gates [was] the richest man in
>> the world, and all of his wealth came from criminal activity.
>
>Sounds like typical envy to me.
Guffaw. See what I mean?
>When you eventually abandon and denounce
>your socialist tendencies you'll see that a $40.00 OS which most users
>choose isn't all that bad.
Now if they choose it and it isn't so bad, why does MS have contracts
REQUIRING OEMs to force it on customers in order to maintain
profitability?
>When you decide to ever use something other
>than Window 9x to complain about Microsoft you shall be truly free. Look
>at me, I'm using another OS to DEFEND MS and freedom of choice!
That's because you're a pathetic moron, dude.
>Here's about 8140 links to get you started on your bonanza of choice in
>this free world.
>http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/
Here's a better one: http://www.econ.umn.edu/~matheson/antitrust.html
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:38:32 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 26 Apr 2001 23:57:08
-0500;
>
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9c6rsi$j17$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Chad Everett wrote:
>> >
>> > > Bingo buddy! Exactly correct. Windows 2K Pro is crappy.
>> >
>> > If only I could afford the damned thing to find out. I imagine there's
>> > some illegal iso's of Win 2K out there on the web, though.
>>
>> There is a perfectly legal trial version.
>> If you can't afford it (I think it's 5$), then you've other problems.
>
>He runs Linux - he can't afford a haircut - what makes you think he could
>afford real software?
>
>Remember - linux is free if your time is worth nothing.
Likewise, it is worth a great deal to people who's time is worth a great
deal.
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:38:35 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 29 Apr 2001 10:43:08
-0500;
>
>"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> MH wrote:
>>
>> > This is SO true! I just setup a windows mini home LAN to a broadband
>modem -
>> > ISP using a linksys router. One windows whistler box, one win98 box, one
>> > winME box, and one RedHat Linux box. Guess which one will not work?
>That's
>> > right. The 3 windows boxes were so simple to setup for shared broadband
>> > access through the router it was amazing. Took all of one hour to
>connect
>> > all the pc's, set up sharing and DHCP. The linux box couldn't get past
>the
>> > NIC setup.
>>
>> Correction: MH couldn't get past the NIC setup. Also, it's probably
>> just because you're so used to setting up Windows boxes, and know
>> absolutely nothing about Linux, except how to bitch about how its "ease
>> of use" sucks compared to Windows. Maybe you should just try another
>> Linux distro instead of just generalizing the entirety of Linux based on
>> your ineptness or failings with one particular distro.
>
>Oh - I see how this double standard works.
>
>If we can't figure out the arcane crap and hoops that Linux makes us jump
>through then it's our fault.
Yup. Same as with Windows, except for the additional burden of having
to deal with monopoly crapware, so that not even experts know why it
dies sometimes and sucks so much all the time.
>When a linvocate can't get even a default install of W2K working right, it's
>Windows fault?
No, when an MCSE can't get monopoly crapware to work right, its
Microsoft's fault, not the MCSE. Likewise, when an administrator cannot
get Linux to work right, it is the administrator's fault BECAUSE LINUX
IS NOT A MONOPOLY. Get it?
>Face it, and this is undeniable, linux is much much more difficult to setup
>and use.
Of course it is: setting up anything is more difficult than not, and
using a computer is not something that comes quickly, normally taking
years of practice to build proficiency just to the point of familiarity.
Linux is much easier to set up than Windows when things don't work, and
much each when things do work, as well. Your little rhetorical game
here simply plays on the fact that, due to rampant illegal behavior by
the monopolist, there are far more times things do work on Windows, in
absolute numbers, than in Linux. Of course, this also means that there
are far more times when things DON'T work in Windows, and DO in Linux,
but I can understand why you'd prefer to ignore that little fact.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:38:36 GMT
Said MH in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 12:57:46 GMT;
>Don't poke sticks at the troubled individual children ... move to the next
>exhibit.
Go away, troll-boy.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft and McCartheism
Date: 30 Apr 2001 19:39:15 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy Brent R <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Chad Everett wrote:
>>=20
>> If you're not un-American, then you have nothing to hide.
>>=20
>> Microsoft wants you to name names:
>>=20
>> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/2/18589.html
>>=20
>> "While stopping just short of claiming that anyone buying
>> a PC without an OS is a de facto criminal, MS obviously
>> reckons that doing so would be outr=E9 enough to qualify
>> one for suspicion, or referral to a shrink. After all,
>> no sane person is going to muck up a perfectly good new box
>> with BeOS or Linux or something freaky like that. Right? =AE"
> I'm getting a little sick of people posting anti-MS stories from the
> frigging Register. Everyone knows it's a biased site so it's usually
> irrelevant what they have to say. I personally don't pay attention to
> them.=20
> Please people, post from a sight other than the Register every once in a
> while.
Please moron, spell 'site' correctly.
=====.
--=20
"Great babylon has fallen, fallen, fallen;
Jerusalem has fallen, fallen, fallen!
The great, Great Beast is DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!"
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
