Linux-Advocacy Digest #132, Volume #34 Wed, 2 May 01 19:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ("pookoopookoo")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ("pookoopookoo")
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: A patchy patch for Microsofts already patched-up Outlook ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Help: Bought out by MS geeks... (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (The Ghost In The Machine)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 3 May 2001 01:20:08 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:51:00
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >> Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 29 Apr 2001
> >> >
> >> >> >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.
> >> >
> >> >Here is a perfectly legal API:
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> My consideration regards real APIs, not "legal" ones, or any other form
> >> of thought experiment.
> >
> >That is a real API.
> >It's just expressed in a language neutral language.
>
> I'm afraid you've opened up a can of worms with "language", there. Do
> you consider ASN a 'language'?
Again, a language, in programmers terms, is a programming language.
VB, Pascal, Perl, C, C++, Java*, are languages.
If you can program in ASN, then it's a language, otherwise, not I don't.
*Java, for your information, is an API. In fact, I can't think of a single
langauge which isn't an API.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 3 May 2001 01:22:52 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
> >On Tue, 1 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 30 Apr 2001
> >>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>> 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.
> >>> No, that wasn't documentation, that was API. [...]
> >> Please define the difference.
> >
> >An API is not an API if it doesn't have function specifications. There
> >is usually documentation on the API that describes *what* (not *how*)
> >things are done on data passed into the function. The documentation,
> >however, is not the API.
>
> Metaphorically, you might be correct, as I understand your point. But
> when someone wants to know "what is the API?" the answer is
> interchangeable with the documentation, is it not? So the documentation
> is as much "the API" as any other concrete thing is. That an API is not
> a concrete thing, but an interface, is understood. What seems
> misunderstood is what, then, 'the API' really "is". What it "is" is the
> sum total of how the *library* works. That there are some choices the
> library programmer can make which do not cause changes in the API might
> be true, but it might also be true that this is a measure of the
> inefficiency of the code and the API.
No, if I want to know what an API is, I don't go to the documentation.
I go the the API's documentation.
What is an API documentation?
API can be divided into two parts:
Functions declaration.
Text that describe what those functions does.
You would need to be more spesific about the documentation part,
documentation of what?
------------------------------
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: Thu, 3 May 2001 01:24:36 +0200
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina) writes:
>
> > On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > >>>> This mean that I can implement this as a C array, linked list,
binary tree,
> > >>>> hell, I could implement it as a database object, and anyone using
this
> > >>>> wouldn't have a clue how I do it.
> > >>> Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their
application is
> > >>> not working as expected. Right?
> > >>
> > >>Wrong. An API defines access to a service -- and if that service isn't
> > >>working right, then you go to the provider of that service to get it
> > >>fixed. The details of implementation aren't important to the user of
> > >>the API. (In general; there are cases when the implementation may be
> > >>discussed between supplier and customer, but this has more to do with
> > >>performance requirements than anything else.)
> > >
> > >In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
> > >about a function than the API documentation itself can provide.
> >
> > You know this because of your extensive programming eperience, right?
> > Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
> > arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
>
> Well, there are little things like in C++ you have no guarantee that a
> const-less method won't modify a passed-in object. It *may* or it
> *may not*, but that information is usually important.
Because a function declaration is *not* an API. It's only a part of it.
You have another part, which tells you *what* this function does.
If the documentation of that functions doesn't mention anything about it
being changed, you can assume that it won't.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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!
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 01:28:03 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:RuZH6.1897$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > On Wed, 02 May 2001 16:34:31 GMT, "Daniel Johnson"
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >Microsoft was thinking of the future. They don't need
> > >the limitations of being stuck with a DOS codebase;
> > >they would like to be able to do things like switch
> > >processor architectures if needed.
> >
> > Oh yeah, we all know portable MS operating systems are. ;)
>
> We all know how portable Windows 95 *isn't*. :D
>
> This is the problem Microsoft still has to overcome.
>
> Sure, 80x86 is the enegerizer bunny of CPUs, but nothing
> lasts forever. Sooner or later Microsoft will *have* to
> support something else.
Intel means to kill it within ten years time, AFAIK
> They've got no hope of doing it with the Windows 95
> codebase.
Nor did they mean to.
> Frankly, they have been lucky that 80x86 has lasted
> as long as it has. They'd had nothing but trouble
> trying to get away from DOS. It's 2001, and most of
> us still have DOS bits sprinkled liberally over our
> OS.
NT doesn't, and I've used nothing else for other two yeras, 9x was never
meant to last beyond the time it would take people to start coding for NT.
BTW, NT was implemented on a MIPS first, before ported to x86, to ensure
portability.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 01:28:48 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001 23:57:15
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
01:24:11
> >
> >> >As a side note:
> >> >C:\Documents and Settings\Ayende>debug
> >> >-f 0:0 ffff 5
> >> >
> >> >C:\Documents and Settings\Ayende>
> >> >
> >> >It didn't even crash cmd.exe :-)
> >>
> >> No doubt a hacked patch, rather than a fix to the fundamental flaws
> >> embedded in Windows, due to its historical development as a DOS
> >> extender.
> >
> >Please notice the path & the application name, and don't display you
> >ignorance.
> >This is not a DOS extender, this is an NT system, which has no DOS roots
at
> >all.
>
> Note the lack of reading comprehension on your part.
NT doesn't extend DOS, in any way, shape, or form, period.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:26:43 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> I've just composed a letter to a friend, timed lyx startup(non cache)3 seconds.
> Load 3 page Lyx document, 3 seconds.
Word is a little slower.
> Now I wanted to include a jpeg picture of my motorbike,wich a friend snapped
> with his cannon SLR digital camera.
Insert Picture in Word.
> Lyx doesnt take anything but a postscript image, so
> - start the Gimp (11 seconds to start up)
> - read bike.jpeg
> - save as bike.ps (encapsulated ps, greyscale)
> - insert bike.ps into letter
> - print to postscript laser printer (perfect)
You have to convert to postscript! Oh boy! Insert File in word, and it
does it straight away!
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "pookoopookoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 18:31:19 -0400
> I take it you are referring to Pantone color correction? I'm very sorry,
> but there is no chance of that being reverse-engineered, as it is
> patented. So even if reverse engineering were possible, it'd still leave
> the Gimp developers open for litigation.
>
> Mart
No, not pantone color correction, I'm talking about cmyk correction. Pantone
correction never works anyway.
------------------------------
From: "pookoopookoo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 18:31:58 -0400
> Linux has the GIMP, which seems very similar to Photoshop. Quark I
> beleive is a pagesetting/typesetting gizmo , so Linux would have Lyx
> (and probably many more frontends to TeX/LaTeX etc) , which I think
> would do the same thing. Don't know about illustrator though
There's killustrator, but it needs to mature quite a bit.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:28:23 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> >"Once you're used to it", a telling phrase. With Word you can just start
> >typing.
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. The four years I made my living teaching people to
> use Word says you're wrong. Way wrong.
"Those who can't, teach"?
Please explain how I'm wrong? I load word, I start typing. I then print
it. I don't even need to name it.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:32:44 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Provided you have a network neighborhood icon on the desktop of the
> client; if you don't, nothing works.
Well, duh!
> The command line ftp does not support recursion, so its rather useless
> for this kind of thing.
The ZIP it.
> >Hmmm... not of them, not even KDE or GNOME are as functional as Windows GUI.
>
> Depending on how brain-dead your opinion of 'functional' might be.
Better than KDE or GNOME.
> Guffaw.
Rasperberry.
> >If konqueror is an example of file manager's it's nothing to write home
> >about.
>
> The same is true of Explorer (either).
Yet explorer is faster than konqueror.
> >> Outhouse - Exmh
> >
> >Never heard of Outhouse.
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
Rasperberry.
> Everyone else has! :-D
I knew what it meant. Unfortunately, you have no understanding of
something called "sarcasm".
> >ICQ on Windows is far, far better than LICQ.
>
> [...]
[???]
You put dots meaning what precisely?
> Okay, its obvious how this is going to go. You take all the fun out of
> ridiculing your ridiculous position when you make it so ridiculous that
> it ridicules itself.
You're the one guffawing. Nobody else is.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:37:48 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001
>On Tue, 01 May 2001 11:03:56 -0400, pookoopookoo
[...]
>It should be a matter of clicking on an icon and changing between the
>various dpi.
>
>I can't believe nobody has figured this one out yet because it would
>eliminate at least 50 percent of the "Netscape fonts suck" messages in
>the Linux groups.
Your posts are a map of your ignorance, fishhead. It "should be"
whatever way it is in Windows, right? And the fact that it is
*Netscape* fonts that suck doesn't seem to register, eh?
Look, we're SORRY it is not as good at fooling you into thinking
computers are simple and easy as Bill Gates' rip-off is. There's no
place like home, Dorothy. There's no place like home.
If you can manage to make it back to the real world, perhaps you'd be
willing to learn why it isn't necessarily a good thing to be limited to
a single font configuration for the entire computer (except when it
decides to do it different, as it randomly will) like in monopoly
crapware. Windows is simply technically incapable of looking anywhere
NEAR as good as Linux. The fact that this is often not pre-configured
is simply because MS's illegal behavior makes it only possible for Linux
to develop a market by maintaining the OEM and the OS developer as
separate. Normally in a computer market, it doesn't work that way; in
fact you'll find the situation unique to the PC world. Or should I say
the monopolized market?
--
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: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:37:49 GMT
Said pookoopookoo in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001 11:07:48
-0400;
>> No, they are music programs his mummy and daddy bought him so that he can
>> play chop sticks on his electric keyboard, then print out the manuscript on
>> his win printer he recieved from Father Christmas.
>>
>> Matthew Gardiner
>
>So Matt, do you resort to ridicule because Linux really doesn't have any
>app to match these, and is therefore useless for a Digital Audio
>professional? I'm in the same boat. I'm a graphics professional, and
>Linux has no equivalents to Quark, Illustrator and Photoshop. If it
>does, please tell me, I certainly haven't found any. And even if I did,
>I wonder how my files would be recieved at a service bureau if I told
>them they came from Linux...
I'm not an expert, but if you're talking professional stuff, I think
FrameMaker would be a good start. You want to get yourself a graphics
workstation, not a PC. Of course, if you're comfortable with the rather
rough and ugly output you get from a Windows box, that might be a
different thing. As for the service bureau, it doesn't matter to them
what OS you use. If they are professional, they'll appreciate
postscript output; if not, they can use pdf.
Audio professionals use professional systems. The low end are all
Windows, of course, because of the lawbreaking my Microsoft to prevent
any other options. They can't even touch the high-end, of course, so
that's all Unix or some specialty OS.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:34:14 GMT
In article <9cjihs$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> Don't worry, accidentally installing a server operating system over a far
> superior desktop operating system will surely make your wife feel all the
> better that you know SO MUCH more about computers than she does.
Smoking!
--
Pete
------------------------------
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: Thu, 3 May 2001 01:38:42 +0200
"Graham Murray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In gnu.misc.discuss, "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > No, in practice, API calls that doesn't exist are used all the time.
> > They need to exist only when you are ready to compile the code.
>
> Or even (as some languages and operating systems allow) until the time
> the function is actually invoked.
Yes, not on any of the languages that I program with (can you give more
details, though, it sound interesting) at the moment.
> So that if an external reference is
> unresolved when the application is started, it will run perfectly
> until that function is called, at which time (using a mechanism akin
> to a virtual memory page fault) the loader will be invoked to resolve
> the reference and enter the function (returning an error to the
> application if the reference cannot be resolved.) Alternatively, even
> with systems which resolve all externals when the application is
> started, it would be possible to have unimplemented/optional/extra
> cost functions which are absent (and therefore calling them will
> generate an error) when the application is started. So, for example, a
> word processor may have a API whereby it can call a function for each
> language to perform a grammar check. Suppose that, for example, nobody
> has yet written an ancient Greek grammar check function but the
> application supports that language. So, when the user select "grammar
> check" on an ancient Greek document the application attempts to call
> the function "ancient_greek_grammar_check", discovers that it is an
> unresolved external so a dialog box is displayed apologising for the
> unavailability of that functionality. However when someone (either the
> application author or a 3rd party) subsequently writes the
> "ancient_greek_grammar_check" function and the user installs it, the
> same (unchanged) application will now call it.
Ouch. That is a *bad* way to implement it.
I would do it like this:
Grammer_Check(string Language)
This way, your languages aren't hard coded to the application, and you don't
need to use special mechanisms to avoid it.
The Grammer_Check function checks against X for list of supported, and then
load a DLL or a set of rules or something to check it.
Much more flexible this way.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:42:51 GMT
Said pookoopookoo in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 01:06:44
>> Sun uses Adobe and Kodak color correction software. I noticed it there
>> in the manuals but I don't use it. Thought I'd mention it tho. Solaris
>> 8 x86.
>
>Sweet. I knew it was possible. I mean, Rips are connected to SUN or NT boxes
>everywhere. It's rare that a Mac or Windows production machine is connected
>to a rip. Now all the linux folk have to do is reverse engineer the color
>correction process. Or alternatively, an enterprising group has a chance to
>sell some software, by creating a closed-source color correction product
>that works at the system level, so that everything on the screen is
>corrected. I don't know if the latter is possible in X11 though my knowledge
>of Linux does not reach that far...
Given the court decision Lasercomb America v. Reynolds (1990), they
should be able to just port the software, with no need to 'reverse
engineer' anything. That would require a great deal of balls, though,
equivalent to the DeCSS hack.
http://www.urich.edu/~jolt/v1i1/liberman.html#fn43
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 17:40:55 -0500
This was *5* months ago.
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cpb35$fkt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Yes, just when you thought Microsoft security couldn't possibly get any
> worse, they pull out this little doosie:
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/4/18664.html
>
> Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A patchy patch for Microsofts already patched-up Outlook
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 17:41:43 -0500
Also months ago.
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cpatg$fkt$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> After Microsoft release the patch, they felt rather proud of their
> achievement, funny enough, the patch is patchy, surprise surprise?
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/8/18679.html
>
> Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Help: Bought out by MS geeks...
Date: Wed, 2 May 2001 23:58:20 +0100
Donn Miller wrote:
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> > I would have said.."YOu know...Unix...THE PLATFORM THAT ALL OF OUR
> > FREAKING SOFTWARE RUNS ON, you ninny!"
>
> Response: "Great, I'll install Cygwin32 on all the NT machines and port
> the Linux code over right away."
>
Luckily my manager only runs the repair department - the software division
of the company is based in another part of the country and do know what
systems are best for our customers.
I would be very bad if my manager were to insist on switching all our
repair department machines to NT though - we need unix ( SCO unixware and
Linux) in this department to test any terminals we repair - they need to be
tested on the same operatng environment the customers use them on.
This will not happen though - the person in charge of our department NT
server is even looking into replacing it with Linux & Samba to improve
stability and remove the need for the server to viruscheck all files stored
on it ( all workstations have viruscheckers installed anyway). Just don't
tell our manager ;-)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Wed, 02 May 2001 22:46:58 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Wed, 02 May 2001 07:05:07 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Terry Porter wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 01 May 2001 11:07:48 -0400,
>> pookoopookoo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> No, they are music programs his mummy and daddy bought him so
>> >> that he can play chop sticks on his electric keyboard, then
>> >> print out the manuscript on his win printer he recieved from
>> >> Father Christmas.
>> >>
>> >> Matthew Gardiner
>> >
>> > So Matt, do you resort to ridicule because Linux really doesn't
>> > have any app to match these,
>> Flatfish only mentioned them because he knows that. Linux doesn't
>> have any software for launching rockets,or controlling Patriot
>> missile systems either.
>
>Actually, Patriot missile systems run on Solaris....so porting to Linux
>would be trivial.
Now there's a marketing notion for Microsoft!
"Microsoft. Where Patriot Missiles attack and kill the target
with 99.999% reliability."
Erm....no, wait....
"Microsoft. Where you can see the missile going the wrong way
on a very pretty terrain graph."
Hmm...this might be harder than I thought...
"Microsoft. Where a Blue Screen Of Death is *meaningful*."
Um...no...
"Microsoft. Point. Click. Boom."
Damn. Never mind.
[.sigsnip]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random advertising slogan here
EAC code #191 2d:14h:18m actually running Linux.
This message is way too short to tell you the wonderful ...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
