Linux-Advocacy Digest #143, Volume #34 Thu, 3 May 01 07:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Primary and secondary missions ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (Terry Porter)
Re: The upgrade (Terry Porter)
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh! (Rob S. Wolfram)
Re: Major Microsoft FUD tomorrow!! ("Flacco")
Re: OEM Windows licenses not transferable to charities ("David Brown")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Stefaan A Eeckels)
Re: Just for chuckles (pip)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Ian Davey)
Re: Major Microsoft FUD tomorrow!! (pip)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Nomen Nescio)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Nomen Nescio)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are liars. ("billh")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,us.military.army
Subject: Re: Primary and secondary missions
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 08:13:01 GMT
"Ray Fischer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cq63h$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> The problem with right-wing Republicans is that they're stupid
> bigots.
Wow. My Black conservative neighbor will be shocked to hear this.
PS: Don't be a sheep. Turn off your TV. Don't believe everything you are
told. Think for yourself.
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 08:16:44 GMT
"John Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cp8aq$edv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> (Humor 2: I got a flyer in the mail for a course on how to "install,
> operate and maintain the free Linux operating system". The course cost
> $995 per person. Perhaps we should send MIS.)
LOL. And they say there's no money in open source!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 03 May 2001 08:30:53 GMT
On Thu, 3 May 2001 08:38:50 +0100,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> > You don't need to name the file, even to print it. If you want to save
>> > it, then you need a name. Can you not name the file in LyX?
>> Well of course you can, lyx also supplies a default name if you cant be
>> bothered thinking o fone yourself.
>
> Yes but LyX actually needs one as it produces a file to be converted to
> postscript then printed, does it not? Word goes straight to the printer.
No it doesn't, Lyx supplies a file name of its own (just tested that).
>
> --
> ---
> Pete Goodwin
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
> My opinions are my own
--
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: 03 May 2001 08:35:56 GMT
On Thu, 3 May 2001 08:34:08 +0100,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> > Windows leaves the driver there, but doesn't make it visible to other
>> > apps. Linux leaves the driver but leaves it visible to other apps - only
>> > because there's no agreed standard there.
>>
>> Please include a, <snip> when you cut my posts, because you have left
>> quite alot out.
>
> Did I leave out anything actually relevant?
I thought so.
>
>> > You tell me, which one gets it right? Windows does, as it works.
>>
>> My experience leads me to disagree, Windows(95 & 98) can't even setup my
>> NE2000 isa nic cards in a working state, without manual intervention.
>
> I can't comment as I don't have an NE2000.
You can trust me there, Ive had these cards (no name elcheapo's) for about 5
years after buying a box of them.
>
>> > Windows booted and reinstalled everything. I didn't see any safe mode.
>> > After five reboots, it was working as before.
>>
>> **reinstalled** ????
>
> Yes, I know. It's ridiculous. Hey, look, I found a mouse. Hang on a
> minute, aren't you already using it?
>
>> When you swap mobos with Linux, no **reinstall** is neccessary. Linux boots
>> up just like it did with the previous mobo.
>
> True.
>
>> Only one power on is needed after swapping mobos, and **NO** reboots with
>> Linux.
>
> Again, true. Now, if only everything else were equal, Linux would be
> great!
Hahahah, but it's this unequal world that makes everything so interesting :)
>
> --
> ---
> Pete Goodwin
> All your no fly zone are belong to us
> My opinions are my own
--
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] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Date: 2 May 2001 16:05:43 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
>> >You could boot to DOS in Win95 and type Win, but you weren't really running
>> >Windows on DOS at that point, Win95's VMM basically took over. It's similar
>> >to how Novell 3.x and 4.x ran.
>>
[DOS can overwrite system memory in W9x]
>
>Well, you are correct, but not for the right reasons. I was correct what I
>said before, however, Win9x will let 16-bit apps run rampant and not
>prevent them from writing to memory and such. Win9x will not isolate apps
>like NT does.
Well then W9x doesn't really take over, does it?
>> Running server.exe to load Netware or loadlin.exe to load Linux is a
>> very different story. These *do* use DOS as a bootloader only and DOS is
>> not in control after that.
>
>Just like Win9x.
Not quite. Netware and Linux run *instead of* DOS, W9x runs besides
and/or on top of DOS. In the latter case DOS is a lot more than merely a
bootstrap system. Note that the debug thingy uses 20 (or 21) bit
addressing. If W9x really had taken over it would be a senseless mapping
to the flat 32-bit addressing mode and exception handling would be
trivial. This is clearly not the case.
>> Guess what, if I'd do the same trick in a
>> DOSemu session after I loaded Linux with loadlin.exe, it would crash my
>> DOSemu session alone. Everything else would still run along. *There'*
>> the difference.
>
>That's because Linux is a fully 32-bit protected memory OS whereas Win9x
>is like 3/4 of the way there.
ITYM it only has 3/4 of the way to go ;-)
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
Every program in development at MIT expands until it can read mail.
-- Chris Costello <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> in c.o.l.a
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rob S. Wolfram)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Winvocates confuse me - d'oh!
Date: 3 May 2001 06:47:07 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>"Rob S. Wolfram" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >You could boot to DOS in Win95 and type Win, but you weren't really
>> >running Windows on DOS at that point, Win95's VMM basically took
>> >over. It's similar to how Novell 3.x and 4.x ran.
>>
>> I disagree here. If this were true, then 16-bit applications should not
>> be able to crash the complete OS, but at most the set of 16-bit apps.
>> Just a trivial demo: (CAVEAT: THIS *WILL* CRASH YOUR OS)
>> Start a DOS box while running W95, W98 or WME and run debug. Issue the
>> command "f 0:0 ffff 5" which fills your lower 64k of memory while in
>> 16-bit mode, with the value 5. This locks the whole system and the
>> power-button is the only way out.
>
>That's not true. Netware NLM's are perfectly capable of crashing the NOS,
>because the NOS had no memory protection between processes.
Via NLM's, yes. I think (but I haven't tried) that you can also
trivially crash Linux by writing to /dev/kmem. The DOS that was used to
boot the system isn't available for the job anymore though.
>Note that chad said "decent 32-bit process isolation", not "perfect" or
>"complete".
The phrase I fell over is quoted above. "W9x takes over". It most
certainly does not.
>> Running server.exe to load Netware or loadlin.exe to load Linux is a
>> very different story. These *do* use DOS as a bootloader only and DOS is
>> not in control after that. Guess what, if I'd do the same trick in a
>> DOSemu session after I loaded Linux with loadlin.exe, it would crash my
>> DOSemu session alone. Everything else would still run along. *There'*
>> the difference.
>
>One has to wonder what would happen if you wrote to the 68000 portions of
>the PPC MacOS's, whether it would crash the OS. It's a similar concept.
I wonder if you would be able to do this with a userspace application
in Yellow Dog Linux without resorting to tricks like writing to
/dev/kmem or /proc/kcore. I won't hold my breath though...
Cheers,
Rob
--
Rob S. Wolfram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> OpenPGP key 0xD61A655D
Assimilation is irrelevant. You are futile.
-- stolen from 'Skud'
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Major Microsoft FUD tomorrow!!
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 04:47:56 -0400
> http://www.mccullagh.org/image/950-15/microsoft-party-craig-mundie.html
>
> Insert your own painfully humorous caption.
Mundie: "Now, as you can see, with a simple click of the stylus, we can
transfer a big wad of cash directly into your campaign fund account."
------------------------------
From: "David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: OEM Windows licenses not transferable to charities
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 11:11:17 +0200
Erik Funkenbusch wrote in message ...
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9coouq$op1
>> >So you're saying that the mere concept of charging for something should
>> make
>> >it fit for any possible purpose the end-user might put it to?
>> >
>> >So, if you buy a Yugo, you should expect it to be able to haul rocks in
a
>> >quarry?
>>
>> No, there is a step in between. MS (and others - MS typifies this type
of
>> EULA, but they are not alone) says that even though you paid for the
>> software, they don't guarentee that it is fit for anything. I think that
>> standard consumer laws should apply to software.
>
>The EULA also says "the the extent allowed by law". Which means that if
you
>aren't happy with your states laws concerning consumer protection, call
your
>lawmaker.
Ah, so you think that you consumers have a significant influence on the law?
Do you think, for example, that the DCMA act was for the benifit of end
users? It is not always the case that big, rich corperations or groups
dictate the law, but it is not far off it.
There is also the very large difference between law theory and law practice.
You might, with enough digging through law books, find that MS is obliged to
return the price of your Windows because it crashed. Even though the law
was on your side, you would have a very long, difficult and expensive battle
to get that return.
>
>> I just think that if a company has charged money for some software, then
>> they should accept a certain degree of responsibility and liability for
>it.
>
>Why accept liability if the law doesn't require you to? That's not good
>business practice.
>
If you throw a stone through someone's window, they are likely to demand
that you pay for it. In keeping with the software industry's attitude, you
just reply "sue me", knowing that it will not be worth the time, effort and
expense for the homeowner to go through a court battle for the price of the
window. Even though, assuming he won, he would force you to pay his legal
fees. The "maximum extent allowed by law" really indicates that the law
does not support typical EULAs, but very few consumers are willing to wage
war to protect their legal rights.
------------------------------
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: Thu, 3 May 2001 10:45:45 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Wed, 2 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> I'm afraid you've opened up a can of worms with "language", there. Do
>> you consider ASN a 'language'?
>
> For the moment, I'm going to have to assume that you've typoed there --
> and you meant ASL (American Sign Language). If that's not the case,
> then you'll have to explain what you meant by ASN.
Abstract Syntax Notation?
--
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: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just for chuckles
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 10:35:40 +0100
Adam Warner wrote:
> M$ marketing crap:
> Linux has "Poor support for Java"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Now THAT is funny! You should forward that to Sun to make 'em chuckle.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey)
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 09:39:25 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So, to summarize, you believe that homosexual attraction is genetically
>determined.
The evidence certainly suggests that.
>In other words, it is a birth defect, just like congenital mental retardation.
No, in other words it's just like hetrosexuality. You can't even start using
the old "passing on the genes" argument, as there is no biological reason why
homosexuals can't have children and many do. Sex is both a biological act,
enabling reproduction, and something connected to pleasure and intimacy. The
two don't have to be connected, in fact you'll find they're not in an
increasing number of hetrosexual couples. Or are you telling me you never use
contraception? Homosexuality is no more a birth defect than blue eyes or
blonde hair is. To say so only exposes your prejudice, whether you like to
admit it or not.
It is not in the interests of the human species for the population to explode
out of control. If everyone followed your biological rules, we'd all end up
living in bedsits with at least twelve children. You ever seen Monty Python's
Meaning of Life?*
ian.
* Why do I get the disturbing feeling that Aaron would have sold his kids for
medical experiments long before then?
\ /
(@_@) http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/ (dark literature)
/(&)\ http://www.eclipse.co.uk/sweetdespise/libertycaptions/ (art)
| |
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Major Microsoft FUD tomorrow!!
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 10:50:58 +0100
Flacco wrote:
>
> > A few hours ago, a friendly journalist tipped me that Craig Mundie of
> > Microsoft is going to make a major speech in New York tomorrow attacking
> > open-source software -- specifically, attacking the GNU General Public
> > License. This speech is probably intended to define Microsoft's party
> > line on open source, and to shift the terms of the debate over it to one
> > that Microsoft thinks it can win.
>
> And here's a picture of Mundie and a Microsoft lobbyist shmoozing it up
> with a congressman:
>
> http://www.mccullagh.org/image/950-15/microsoft-party-craig-mundie.html
>
> Insert your own painfully humorous caption.
Mundie: "Now let me show you this.... erm, it seems to have locked up.
Isn't that something! It's make by Palm don't you know."
===========
Mundie: "And look we are very supportive of open standards. Here is the
Java KVM running on one of our little palm devices"
Politician: "Is that a picture of Scot McNealy's head exploding?"
Mundie: "Yeah - neat huh?"
===========
Mundie: "...and by 2010 those communist countries are going to take this
red licensing blob if we don't get some slack"
Politician :"Well as long as you stay legal"
Mundie: "Legal? We ARE the law"
============
Mundie: "If I give this to your kid, can we trash Sun's offices? - look
here is out tasklist"
===========
Mundie: "Oh you want tax help? Look here are my layers numbers - yes I
know there are so many - which is why I carry them around on this thing"
========
Mundie: "Yes - you CAN play packman on it - neat aye?"
------------------------------
From: Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 12:00:18 +0200 (CEST)
aaron wrote:
> Matt Kennel wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 02 May 2001 12:42:40 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > :
> > :So, to summarize, you believe that homosexual attraction is genetically
> > :determined.
> >
> > The twin and brother studies seem to indicate that it is
> >
> > :In other words, it is a birth defect, just like congenital mental retardation.
> >
> > Or being black or lithuanian.
>
> Being black or lithaunian doesn't interfere with the survival of
> the DNA's lineage.
>
> Being homosexual does.
>
> Hope that helps.
so aaron, did you ever figure out the third possibility?
for those following along at home the question was:
you see a guy with no legs. this may be the result of:
a. a genetic defect
b. self mutilation
c. ???
and before you get all worked up about it don't worry.
we don't hold your gayness against you.
in fact that's the least of your problems...
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 12:10:11 +0200 (CEST)
Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > :> What an absurd statement, you're the one being completely illogical. If
> > :> a hetrosexual can be "converted" then clearly they already have
> > :> homosexual leanings.
> > :
> > :Proof?
> >
> > Know anybody who 'came out of the closet' who said ``I honestly had
> > absolutely no desire for guys before and got turned on by women only, and
> > I wasn't just acting.'' ?
> >
> > Why is it called 'coming out of the closet' as in their personality
> > was hidden, rather than, ``changing my mind about what gender I wanted
> > to boink.''
>
> Also take this logic as well. Would some one wakeup one day and say, "I'll
> join one of the most despised groups, lose most of my friends and then to
> top it all off, get rejected by my family". Doesn't sound logical, does it?
yet l. ron hubbard has thousands of followers to this day.
jackie 'anakin' tokeman
men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
more even than death
- bertrand russell
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 22:23:16 +1200
Nomen Nescio wrote:
> Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > :> What an absurd statement, you're the one being completely illogical.
>> > :> If a hetrosexual can be "converted" then clearly they already have
>> > :> homosexual leanings.
>> > :
>> > :Proof?
>> >
>> > Know anybody who 'came out of the closet' who said ``I honestly had
>> > absolutely no desire for guys before and got turned on by women only,
>> > and I wasn't just acting.'' ?
>> >
>> > Why is it called 'coming out of the closet' as in their personality
>> > was hidden, rather than, ``changing my mind about what gender I wanted
>> > to boink.''
>>
>> Also take this logic as well. Would some one wakeup one day and say,
>> "I'll join one of the most despised groups, lose most of my friends and
>> then to
>> top it all off, get rejected by my family". Doesn't sound logical, does
>> it?
>
> yet l. ron hubbard has thousands of followers to this day.
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>
> men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
> more even than death
> - bertrand russell
Who's Ron Hubbard?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[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.
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 10:47:13 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> The C-130 has been tried and USED and found to be a good strategic
> lift platform by many countries.
Bottom line: Kulkis, you stated the C130 was a USAF strategic airlift bird.
You were wrong. You can decide to be a professional or a wannabe who slings
bullshit. You, wannabe, are not a professional.
>
> In the US, we simply have planes which are even BETTER strategic
> lift...namely, the C-5.
>
> However, the C-5's capabilities diminish the C-130's capabilities
> not a whit.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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, 03 May 2001 06:53:38 -0400
JS PL wrote:
>
> T. Max Devlin wrote in message
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 10:50:53 -0400;
> >>Aaron R. Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >>>Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>>> > Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
> 10:11:32 -0400;
> >>>> > >Since 1993, however, Compaq has not consistently loaded any
> >>>> > >alternatives to Windows on personal computers it markets to
> consumers.
> >>>> Our
> >>>> > >assessment of consumer preference is that our customers want Windows
> >>to
> >>>> be
> >>>> > >preinstalled on their computers.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > I don't think you understand how damning such testimony is to
> >>>> > Microsoft's case, JS PL.
> >>>>
> >>>> I don't understand, that's for sure. Sure seems like this Compaq
> >>>> testimony backs up what us MS-shills are saying: People aren't
> >>>> being "forced" to accept Windows; companies like Compaq
> >>>> are giving them what they want.
> >>>
> >>>Then how come, if I call up Compaq, and ask for a desktop machine
> >>>with Linux pre-installed, the REFUSE to sell it to me, and when
> >>>it comes to servers, fi I ask for Linux pre-installed, they will
> >>>NOT give me a rebate on the Mafia$oft licenses which I am not
> >>>going to use.
> >>
> >>Because no one has the inherint "right" to buy whatever they want.
> >
> >Yes we do. We live in a free country; we have the right to buy whatever
> >we want.
>
> I'm sorry kook. Your wrong. You have the right to buy whatever someone would
> like to sell. That's all. You don't have the right to buy whatever you want,
> that would be the *opposite* of a free country.
>
> >There is no reason (save illegal actions known as
> >'monopolization') that a producer would not then attempt to profit by
> >selling us whatever we want.
> >
> >>It's the same reason
> >>you can't walk into McDonalds and demand a pizza.
> >
> >You're saying McDonalds doesn't want to sell pizza for some reason other
> >than that they can't make enough money from it to show a profit?
>
> No. Their reasons for not selling pizza do not matter. The fact remains that
> you have no right whatsoever to go into McDonalds and buy wahtever you want,
> including demanding a pizza.
>
> > I don't know of any honest businessman who would turn down honest profit
> >on principle.
>
> Not relevant.
The problem is the vendors are not being allowed to sell whatever they
want. Some have wanted to sell other OS's but were prevented by
per-processor or per-system licensing. Now there is the the "bounty" for
vendors selling bare systems.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 06:54:58 -0400
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "John Jensen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9cp8aq$edv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > (Humor 2: I got a flyer in the mail for a course on how to "install,
> > operate and maintain the free Linux operating system". The course cost
> > $995 per person. Perhaps we should send MIS.)
>
> LOL. And they say there's no money in open source!
Only the grossly uninformed has said that. Even Stallman says you can
make money in Open Softeware.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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, 03 May 2001 06:58:58 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001
> > >I don't understand, that's for sure. Sure seems like this Compaq
> > >testimony backs up what us MS-shills are saying: People aren't
> > >being "forced" to accept Windows; companies like Compaq
> > >are giving them what they want.
> >
> > This is just word-games played on the assumption that all transactions
> > are voluntary and all contracts guarantee informed consent. This is
> > obviously a fallacy. People are routinely "forced" to accept Windows,
> > as is conclusively proven by the lack of available alternatives which
> > adequately substitute for Windows.
>
> I suppose you could look at it that way, but I don't see
> how it's Microsoft's fault that their competitors produce
> second rate products. :D
>
DR-DOS was not second rate. It included things susch as disk compression
that MS-DOS did not. It also forced Gates to either lower prices or at
least not raise them.
CP/M was not second rate. MS-DOS was a "poor-cousin" clone.
Unix was/is not second rate.
Linux is not second rate.
BeOS wouldnt have been second rate.
Lotus 1-2-3 was not second rate.
WordPerfect was/is not second rate
Go system was not second rate.
> > OF COURSE the testimony "seems like" it supports your apologists
> > position: this was Microsoft's intent in presenting this testimony. The
> > judge found it uncompelling, and so do I.
>
> And I rather think for the same reason, too.
Becasue the other testimony showed Microsoft has a history of
manipulating the industry.
--
Rick
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
