Linux-Advocacy Digest #72, Volume #34 Mon, 30 Apr 01 22:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Terry Porter)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Terry Porter)
Re: The upgrade (Terry Porter)
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars.
("billh")
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars.
("billh")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars. (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Baseball (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Importance, or lack, of Marketshare? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: there's always a bigger fool (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 01 May 2001 01:10:56 GMT
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:08:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Using nix on a server is fine. Virtually nobody, outside of the
> eggheads in R+D, in the company I was speaking of is using
notice Flatfish never mentions names.
> Linux/Aix/*nix on the desktop.
>
Imagine anyone taking notice of a anonymous Wintroll, whose identity
is always hidden, who never gives his real name?
Who has currently amassed these fake identities:-
"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
This Wintroll's believability index is 0.00001 out of 1.
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 01 May 2001 01:17:08 GMT
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001 20:09:06 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yea but Windows has all the applications and device support that
> ordinary people are interested in using.
^^^^^^^^ this used to be 'average', is SquishedFish(tm) running out of
generalisations?
>
> Linux has nothing......
Flatfish *is* nothing, not real, not even credible.
>
> Go compile a kernel or something....
You should try it sometime, beats waiting outside your local Windows
retailer for the latest version of their 'White Goods Software'.
>
> Flatfish
<snip>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: The upgrade
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 01 May 2001 01:22:58 GMT
On Tue, 1 May 2001 00:08:12 +1200, jim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > Linux SuSE 7.1 just... worked. Hey!
>> >
>> > --
>> > Pete
>> >
>> I had the same thing happen when I upgraded my mobo around 1998
>> Win98 went into 'safe' mode, and RedHat4.2 worked as usual.
>
>
> I have installed DOS V6.2 in every x86 box I have trouble with - no problem.
> Linux installs with a but......but......but........ if you did THIS and did
> THAT......
Sure it does, dos is a single user, non multitasking OS. Its obsolete,
check with your Puppet Handler at Microsoft.
>
> Unix is for Physics Majors and Chemistry teachers. Please leave it to the
> experts!
Linux is for any ordinary person willing to learn.
>
> "Redhat working as normal"
>
> login:
>
> root
>
> Segmentation Fault
Congratulations, you have single handledly manaaged to put together the most
screwed up Linux box, I've ever seen, that is providing this post is
legitimate .... which I doubt.
>
> same diff
>
>
> crap>/dev/ttyS0
>
>
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars.
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 01:25:38 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> That which supports strategic goals as opposed to tactical goals.
LOL!!! You've out done yourself, wannabe.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars.
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 01:29:03 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> As an off-the cuff guide:
> Anything which is beyond the scope of mere corps commanders.
>
> If the whole thing can be handled by a corp sommander (or his counterpart
> in the air force ranks), then it's operational or tactical.
>
> If it goes outside corps commmand is strategic.
>
> Again, no definition of these things is 100% absolute.
>
You don't know the doctrinal definition, huh, KuKuNut? Is that what you
mean by "Again, no definition of these things is 100% absolute."? If not,
then let's hear the doctrinal definition, though I seriously doubt you'd
even know where to go to get it.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 01:29:04 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:54:40 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin
>
>> More muddle-headed thinking. The Army is about as anti-violent as you
>> can get.
>
>You've obviously never served, trained, or fought in any Army
Look; if its violence, it isn't being a professional soldier, its being
a thug. I have served, trained, and stood guard with the military
(Navy), and I do know what I'm talking about. Braggadocio fantasies
about bar fights aside, the Seals I knew were pretty gentle guys, and
didn't go in for violence at all.
But obviously I am using a metaphorical argument, to claim that
'violence' is not the same thing as physical force. But then, that
might be because it is not.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>AND I was in the military (though a mere sailor,
>> and an airdale at that) AND I would have killed someone for my country
>> if I had been called on to do so.
>
>Sad.
Guffaw.
--
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,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 01:29:06 GMT
Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:55:48
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> Well, you've well justified that point from your perspective, I gotta
>> say. Still, from mine, there's nothing better available.
>
>You don't find NS4 clumsy, poorly presented, high on memory usage or slow to
>load?
No. Seriously. Honestly. Chalk it up, if you want, to the fact that
I've never been spoiled by something better. I can certainly imagine a
browser which is less clumsy, "better presented" (whatever that was
supposed to mean), lower on memory use or quicker to load. Its just
that I have never found any. Even after I looked. Seriously.
Honestly.
>Those were my complaints as a user on a 200MHz machine with 48MB of
>RAM...
To be perfectly frank, I consider Netscape to be mostly a pile of crap,
and the newer versions are even crappier for my uses, however much
easier they might be to develop for. I'm not complaining about what
makes it easier to develop for, and if NS4 could be "fixed", I'd
probably "switch" just for courtesy. But I've used other browsers, and
honestly they aren't any better, in my experience. Buggy, slow, and
problematic, to varying degrees and in varying 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.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 01:29:07 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 19:38:12
[...]
>Yes. However, there are quite a lot of them and NN allows you to choose
>about options for 5 different things. I would personally like more
>control over how a `default' page is displayed.
For that to happen, we'd need a lot more standardization concerning what
constitute "a page".
This is the problem as I see it with the current web. The design and
development of the technology itself is suited to large amounts of
information, and small amounts of navigation; the whole point of a
hyperlink is cognitive convenience. But the commercialization of the
web, while not a "bad thing" in the abstract, was a flawed technical
implementation. The desire is to have a commercial console, fully
graphically driven, and interface to a "site", not an interface to a
page. Navigation becomes a critical concept for site and page designers
(and the general lack of distinction makes the problem obvious, I
think), but not in the same way at all. It isn't like they abandon any
thought for convenience; it's just that their goals are in conflict with
it.
I think "the Web" should split between actual web pages, and an entirely
different protocol, designed from the start to provide a
high-functionality "commercial console" interface. It wouldn't hurt to
come up with some method of organizing the mess, too. But somehow I
don't think any of these kinds of standards are going to be developed so
long as the software and Internet and media industries refuse to engage
in free market competition.
--
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,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 01:29:09 GMT
Said Zippy in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 15:33:31 GMT;
>>Your ignorance is almost preposterous, I'm afraid. If there is
>>something you don't understand about how the split will restore
>>competition, I'll be happy to explain it to you, but you have to ask
>>questions, so I know where you're getting hung up. I would suggest that
>>its likely to be this idea of "end their predominance of the computer
>>world". It is the free market competition that will result from the
>>remedy, not the remedy itself, which is going to take care of that.
>
>i don't even think you're actually reading my posts. i specifically stated
>that a break up of microsoft would restore competition to the marketplace.
And if you were reading my posts, you'd see I didn't contradict that. I
did comment on your teleology; your explanations of "why" the split
would restore competition. Sorry for the confusion.
>companies which have dealt with a break up in the past (such as at&t) have
>found it so profitable that they have often begun to spin companies off on
>their own.
Or you could say that the loss of monopoly destroyed at&t so thoroughly
that despite the capital to continue operations, and even make profits,
years later, they're still falling apart. It's all in the teleology,
you see. There are some that are more metaphorical (yours, in general)
and some that are more analytical (mine, in general), and some that are
more rhetorical (mine, above).
But my tone probably still sounds argumentative, so I should mention
that I agree with your teleology above.
>microsoft is a relatively young company, and doesn't have the experience or
>will to try anything like this. so they are fighting it tooth and nail.
Microsoft isn't a company. Comparing them to a company that competes in
a free market doesn't make sense, simply because they've always
attempted to monopolize, and have never shown any ability or desire to
compete on the merits of their product. This is evidenced by historical
observation of their "business" strategies, since their very first sale,
and bolstered by the evidence of the lack of competitive merits of their
current products.
I know it sounds overly metaphoric, but Microsoft is criminal
organization, not a legitimate business.
>>"Spawn of" is not "standard oil", or "at&t". And your last statement is
>>entirely wrong, anyway; its only the baby bells, AT&T itself, and Lucent
>
>at&t is still the biggest (although i believe ericsson, which doesn't
>compete in the US, is even bigger), and exxon/mobil and chevron are still
>the biggest. but the competition they enjoy wouldn't exist if it hadn't
>been for the break up.
You're ignoring the circumstances which cause these varying results.
AT&T's "monopoly" was in a technical infrastructure. Oil is an
inherently limited resource, supporting only a limited number of
competitors efficiently. With Microsoft, we're talking software.
That's a whole other thing, don't you think?
>i'm in favor of strict enforcement of anti-trust legislation, so i
>seriously doubt you could shock me by saying anything. but if you want to
>continue to believe that splitting up microsoft is going to in some way
>harm them, then be my guest.
Not them, the monopoly. I don't think it "harms" a company to have to
compete. But MS isn't a company, and they don't have any interest in
competing; they monopolize, it is all they know. Their "success" even
has half the world convinced that all competition is merely
unsuccessfully attempting to monopolize, and that is why I argue with
your teleologies, because it contributes to that fallacy. Monopolists
have a lock on the market; how could anyone not say they are "harmed" by
losing it?
It is a loss of the lock which is caused by the remedy, and this results
in a loss of market share, inevitably. It doesn't quite work the other
way around; you cannot decrease their market share, and thus remove the
lock, which is what your "weakened position" theory requires. Monopoly
is a position which does not have grades, there are no 'strong' or
'weak' ones.
>anti-trust is for the common good, not for vindictive punishment. if any
>company enjoys being a stagnant, lazy monopoly, then that company is
>clearly sick. the "cure" is a break up. competition is healthy.
That's all just too metaphorical to me. I'm not sure what a "company"
being "clearly sick" means. But I can certainly understand "competition
is healthy". I'd still prefer to keep it analytical, and just say that
competition is necessary.
--
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:
us.military.army,alt.destroy.microsoft,soc.singles,soc.ment,alt.military.folklore,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 01:29:12 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 27 Apr 2001
>> >billh wrote:
>> >>
>> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >>
>> >> > Your problem, Bill, is that you are utterly uncreative when it comes
>> >> > to matters where maximum creativity counts.
>> >>
>> >> Is that what you call your lies and your BS excuses and cover you use when
>> >> you are proven wrong? I've never heard of that definition of "creativity"
>> >> before.
>> >
>> >Note how Bill clipped the saga of the creative adaptation of approximately
>> >60 Sherman tanks into earth-moving devices during the hedge-row phase
>> >of the Normandy invasion
>>
>> So your clearly erroneous claim that the C-130 is a strategic platform
>> is now joined by your contention that tanks are construction vehicles?
>>
>
>No. I'm just noting that MANY articles of military equipment are used
>for FAR more types of work than what they were originally designed,
>purchased, and even their crews originally trained for.
No, you're squirming.
Followups set, AGAIN, Aaron.
--
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,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Baseball
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 01:29:15 GMT
Said Nomen Nescio in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:20:04
>t. max fagass:
>> Said Nomen Nescio in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 25 Apr 2001 03:20:02
>> >Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> eeped:
>> >> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > how many retailers sell linux machines again?
>> >> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>> >> >
>> >> > p.s. sneering & not bathing does not a viable marketing strategy make
>> >>
>> >> Only a moron would wonder about the sales of a
>> >> free downloadable operating system.
>> >
>> >funny, i could have sworn i saw a bunch of nerdos whining about how
>> >mean old microsoft was preventing retailers and vendors from selling
>> >machines with linux preinstalled via those mean nasty monopolistic
>> >agreements.
>>
>> Well, this is an 'abstraction error' on your part, hinging on the
>> concept of 'prevent'. It is not a physical barrier, and therefore
>> exceptions to its effects are not contradictory to its existence.
>
>all products face the problem of reaching the consumer.
That is neither the definition nor a useful description of barriers to
entry in a market, which, I will AGAIN point out, are not physical
barriers, or distribution costs, or "problems of reaching the consumer".
>if people wanted
>linux they could get it. [...]
All tautologies are true. That doesn't make the useful in describing
the illegal activity of a monopolist. You DO realize monopolization is
illegal, don't you?
--
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: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 01:29:16 GMT
Said Nomen Nescio in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 16:20:05
>Elias Poulojohn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> minced:
>> Nomen Nescio wrote:
>>
>> > t. max fagass:
>> >> Said Nomen Nescio in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 27 Apr 2001 02:20:06
>> >> >t. max fagass:
>> >> [...]
>> >> >> >> >>Only insecure people care about others' tastes.
>> >> >> >> >
>> >> >> >> >Give him a break. He's a welfare recipient.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Who cares?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >my victims
>> >> >> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
>> >> >
>> >> >jabba is that you?
>> >>
>> >> No, its the Blue Beetle.
>> >
>> > you misspelled raja.
>> >
>> >> >> Jackie thinks he's got "victims". Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
>> >> >
>> >> >are you sure you want to play a game?
>> >>
>> >> Are you sure you want to get your ass spanked?
>> >
>> > did linux reinforce your homosexual bumlooker nature or were you like
>> > this already?
>> > jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>> >
>> > men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
>> > more even than death
>> > - bertrand russell
>> >
>> >
>>
>> so homosexual is supposed to be some kind of an insult?
>
>only if you are ashamed.
I think troll-boy means "only if you're still in grade school", like he
is.
>> and will you at last
>> stop with this idiocy?
>> and as for you jackie-what-ever... i looked at all of your posts...
>> it is clear to me now... you have the IQ of a peenut..
>
>lol
>
>> its a pity...you could make a good homosexual
>
>that was totally gay.
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
You are totally laughable.
--
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,soc.singles,alt.support.troll-acceptance,alt.snuh
Subject: Re: Importance, or lack, of Marketshare?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 01:29:18 GMT
Said Nomen Nescio in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 18:30:12
>Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Followup-To: comp.os.linux.advocacy
>
>whenever i see this it is my policy to add an extra newsgroup.
>or three.
That's because you're an annoying little jackass.
--
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,soc.singles
Subject: Re: there's always a bigger fool
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 01:29:17 GMT
Said Nomen Nescio in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 17:30:12
>t. max fagass:
>> Said Zippy in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 05:42:20 GMT;
>> >this is a matter of opinion and speculation, not what anybody "knows about
>> >computing." if you think splitting up microsoft is going to harm them, or
>> >end their predominance in the computer world, YOU haven't learned anything
>> >about monopolies.
>>
>> Your ignorance is almost preposterous, I'm afraid. If there is
>> something you don't understand about how the split will restore
>> competition, I'll be happy to explain it to you, but you have to ask
>> questions, so I know where you're getting hung up. I would suggest that
>> its likely to be this idea of "end their predominance of the computer
>> world". It is the free market competition that will result from the
>> remedy, not the remedy itself, which is going to take care of that.
>>
>> If you don't understand why, it is certainly because you do not quite
>> understand what "free market competition" means.
>
>free market competition means that microsoft should be able to sign any
>contracts they want, including contracts preventing those they deal with
>from selling or promoting competing systems.
>hth
No, troll-boy, it doesn't help, because it is mistaken. Free market
competition means that Microsoft should be able to sign any LEGAL
contracts that anyone ELSE is willing to accept, without coercion.
Contracts in restraint of trade are outlawed by section 1 of the Sherman
Act, as any contract which unreasonably prevents anyone from selling or
promoting whatever they want is obviously not compatible with "free
market competition".
--
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: 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: Tue, 01 May 2001 01:29:19 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
[...]
>No, you claim that the implentation of API is important to developers who
>code against this API, right?
No. What gave you that idea?
>A related question, how much programming experiance do you have, T. Max? And
>in what language?
Nothing that would rise to the level of what you would consider
"experience", although I did enjoy building a multi-user office workflow
system in WordBASIC. Just a cobbled together bunch of macros, really,
but it was enough conditional processing to qualify as "programming".
You can't count the trainers in the Navy, they were designed to teach
troubleshooting digital circuitry, not programming.
I know enough about programming to know that you can't write a program
that uses a library that doesn't yet exist and expect it to work just
because it matched a draft of the API documentation.
--
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: 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: Tue, 01 May 2001 01:29:20 GMT
Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
[...]
>> 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.
Guffaw.
--
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: Tue, 01 May 2001 01:29:21 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
>"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9ci78v$bnu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:z70H6.46360$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> > If CP/M had won, MS would not have had an OS base
>> > to erode; Windows could have wont hem such a base.
>> >
>> > It would have been a good idea. A second chance to
>> > beat CP/M.
>>
>> And *no* 9x!!!
>> What a *sweat* idea.
>
>I'm afraid that the alternate-history Windows 95
>would probably be just as much a hack as the
>one in our own time-line.
>
>It would just be hacking CP/M instead of
>MS-DOS. They aren't all that different.
The 'success' of Windows doesn't have anything to do with "hacking".
The reason MS-DOS is necessary is not technical; it is the fact that
without a monopoly on the DOS, there would be alternatives to Windows.
>There are plausible ways to get a different
>OS in top of the heap in the early 90s, but
>having CP/M beat out MS-DOS really
>doesn't change much.
But any "plausible way" to avoid the monopolization by Microsoft doesn't
leave any "plausible way" for Windows to not fall quickly and easily to
the competition.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 01 May 2001 01:29:22 GMT
Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001 14:04:43 -0400;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
>> [...]
>> >> This was started before Windows and continued throught he early releases
>> >> of Windows. They were contrived to make it more expensive to ship
>> >> anything except M$ OS's
>> >
>> >Sure. It's not like volume pricing is anything unusual.
>>
>> Microsoft has never offered volume pricing. Saying "we will double the
>> price if you don't buy 120% of last years sales" to ensure that 100% of
>> systems have monopoly crapware is not a volume discount.
>
>Nice to see you have resorted to just making things up off the top of
>your head.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. No, JS PL, that's how it actually works.
--
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
******************************
