Linux-Advocacy Digest #146, Volume #34 Thu, 3 May 01 11:13:06 EDT
Contents:
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: 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: 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: 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)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:52 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 01:16:25
>"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
>> >>>> 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.
>> >
>> >You've been given some. Now either shut up and learn or FOAD.
>>
>> Some what? There have been no examples which refute my logic presented.
>> I am not simply denying there have been examples presented; there have
>> been some, and I have pointed out how they were in error, not actually
>> relating to the point I am making.
>
>You don't have the knowledge to say that something is an error.
I'm afraid you are in error, there.
>Find another person who can agree to the bunch of erronoumous statements
>that you did in the last couple of days regarding software design.
Any reasonable person would, if they understood them correctly. Any
incomprehensibility is entirely my fault.
--
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: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:53 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 01:20:08
>"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.
I cannot put this explanation together with the concept of a "language
neutral language". (I asked about ASN because you cannot program in it,
but it is a language neutral language, as far as I know.)
>*Java, for your information, is an API. In fact, I can't think of a single
>langauge which isn't an API.
You've gone metaphysical, I'm afraid. An API is whatever you call an
API, but nothing "is" an API except an API.
--
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: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:54 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 01:22:52
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>No, if I want to know what an API is, I don't go to the documentation.
>I go the the API's documentation.
Is it only in English that these statements are incomprehensible?
>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?
Yes, that was my point.
--
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: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:55 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:59:37
>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?
No, I know it because people who have extensive programming experience,
who's opinions I trust, and who understand my point correctly, say it is
so.
>Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
>arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
Whichever. I've already told you that you can switch the terms
"program" and "library" in the phrase "a program is derivative of the
library".
--
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: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:56 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:57:47
[...]
>>Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
>>not working as expected. Right?
>
>Removing that need is the whole point of the API.
Yes, just like removing the need to come up with an original plot-line
is the whole point of many derivative movies.
>The API defines how the library must behave. If it doesn't, then
>there is a bug and the library is not an implementation of the API.
The API has metaphysical Truth, is that what you're saying?
--
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: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:56 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:55:54
[...]
>There is no "correct" way to implement an API, there are MANY different
>ways to do it.
Let's just say that some of those ways MAY work, and some of them WILL
work.
--
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: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:57 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 19:41:07
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 22:14:29 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>>I may be ruled by them. However this one is not one of them.
>>
>>Sorry, I am forced to declare that statement to be incomprehensible.
>>How could you possibly know in which instances you are or are not ruled
>>by the concepts in your mind, if you can be ruled by them at all?
>
>I am ruled by the concepts in my mind. This was not a concept in my mind.
I'm afraid it is, Roberto.
--
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: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:58 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > 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.
>
>Compaq seems to think that people like you- you know, anti-MS
>zealots- are not a big enough a big enough market to be worth servicing.
Is that why MS has those ppl lock-in contracts?
>It's my opinion that Compaq is probably right about that.
So you wouldn't know, is that what you're saying?
>But even if they are wrong, their testimony was that they
>believed consumers wanted Windows. No?
No, "his" testimony was that they couldn't make money unless they sold
Windows. That's what happens with monopolization, and why its so
closely related to restraint of trade.
--
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: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:59 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001
>"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
Grinning when you say something stupid and insulting ever get you
punched in the face in real life, troll?
>> 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.
Reasonable men agree in reasonable circumstance.
--
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: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:02 GMT
Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >Now you are forced to use Windows
>> >because I'm a pathetic moron. :-) What's the excuse going to be next month?
>>
>> None of these are 'excuses', anonymous troll. I have no need for
>> excuses.
>
>No, psycho. What you have a need for is some strong medication.
>*G*U*F*F*A*W*!!!
Wow. What happened, did your meds where off unexpectedly or something?
>The choices are out there and have been out there since the dawn of PCs.
Yup, and nobody's buying them. Adam Smith theorized that such a
situation would require some anti-competitive activity, and a hundred
years ago, the U.S. Congress agreed, so they made a law that says
monopolization is illegal, and all contracts in restraint of trade are
felonious.
>That you and perhaps other lemmings like you are too dumb to find them - and
>that less competitive companies find it too difficult to educate you of
>their products - doesn't make Microsoft a monopoly.
Legal theories of anti-trust differ, of course, but almost all of them
agree that you are wrong.
--
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: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:03 GMT
Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Microsoft was convicted of having a monopoly on PC OSes. The evidence
>> provided in the prosecutions argument was their use of monopoly power in
>> one market (PC OSes) to attempt to gain monopoly in another (web
>> browsers), thereby proving they have a monopoly in PC OSes.
>
>No, psycho. Assuming what you're trying to prove doesn't work.
I didn't assume what you're trying to prove; I merely pointed out that
the proof was compatible with the real-world circumstance.
Corroboration turns an accusation into evidence.
>>(If you
>> don't have monopoly power, you cannot attempt to use it, thus the
>> popular misconception that it is the use, not the monopoly power, which
>> is illegal. Again, the distinction only shows up in idiomatic English;
>> in legalese the concepts are more clear cut. Unfortunately, those clear
>> cut issues, when translated by reading back into idiomatic English,
>> simply become more 'per se' rules about how "using" monopoly power is
>> illegal, or how it is possible to gain monopoly power through
>> competitive efforts (e.g. the "superior product, business acumen, or
>> accident of history" "test".)
>
>Yeah, it's really terrible how real-world language gets in the way, eh
>psycho? Hey, maybe if you translate the law into Klingon, then go word for
>word back into English, it'll come out the way you want?
It already comes out the way I want.
--
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: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:04 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Well, no. Windows 1 and 2 were bundled with Excel and
>> > (I think) Word for the PC, but Windows 3 was sold
>> > retail, then sold to OEMs.
>> >
>> > Then it was combined (or bundled, if you like) with
>> > DOS, renamed "Windows 95", and becomes more
>> > comparable to OS/2 than GEM.
>> >
>> > MS didn't go for the integration thing until Windows 3
>> > was firmly on top. They minized the risk that way.
>>
>> If it could survive on its onw, yhen why did the MANDATE bundling?
>
>Microsoft was thinking of the future. They don't need
>the limitations of being stuck with a DOS codebase;
Yea, we know; its there *customers* who demand backwards compatibility.
>they would like to be able to do things like switch
>processor architectures if needed.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
--
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: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:05 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001
>> >> That is, until Mafia$oft old OEM's that they *MUST* bundle windows
>> >> with DOS, and so, even if the user didn't want LoseDOS, they had to
>> >> pay extra for GEM.
>> >
>> >Well, no. Windows 1 and 2 were bundled with Excel and
>> >(I think) Word for the PC, but Windows 3 was sold
>> >retail, then sold to OEMs.
>>
>> It was forced on OEMs, who had to buy it in order to get DOS, which was
>> already a secure illegal monopoly.
>
>Microsoft did not risk getting anal about this until
>1995, when Windows 3's position was already very
>strong.
"Risk getting anal"? They didn't have any ability to extend the DOS
monopoly until Win3, no. The first two versions weren't just crap: they
weren't DOS extensions. Would MS liked to have monopolized with
something earlier? Sure; they'd "like" to be able to monopolize without
maintaining the link to DOS, as well, but as you've noted with many of
your goofy looking smilies, they can't seem to pull that off.
>Until then, MS would sell DOS and Windows
>separately.
No, they'd sell DOS, and try desperately to get someone to buy Windows.
>> Word for Windows 1.0 was released
>> simultaneously with Windows 3.0;
>
>I'm certain that Word for Windows 2 predated
>Win3, and ran on Windows v2. I just don't know
>if it ever ran on Windows v1.
Word for Windows 2.0 was released several months after Windows 3.1.
Neither ever ran on Win1 or 2 or 286/386, for that matter (a sort of
pre-release of the 'dos extender' stuff in Win3).
>> Win1 and 2 were bundled with Excel, and
>> PageMaker, and a few niche products.
>
>Yes. GEM was the same way. GEM's
>most popular app was Ventura Publisher,
>as I recall.
That is correct.
>> >Then it was combined (or bundled, if you like) with
>> >DOS, renamed "Windows 95", and becomes more
>> >comparable to OS/2 than GEM.
>>
>> No, it was bundled as Win3.1;
>
>No, not yet. Win3.1 was still sold separately, and
>so was DOS. Sure, they'd sell you both at once-
>they had no reason to be a pain about that.
Depends on what you mean by "sold separately". According to Microsoft's
internal communications, buying only one was not an option, though they
still listed them separately because they charged for both of them.
Even after the bundling became "official" with Win95, the price remained
at the cost level of both, the first obvious sign of monopoly pricing.
>> Win95 was "bolted", in the terminology of
>> the federal court, and was not comparable to either GEM or OS/2.
>
>This was the real watershed..
No, its just where you started noticing. The watershed was the DOS PPL.
>> >MS didn't go for the integration thing until Windows 3
>> >was firmly on top. They minized the risk that way.
>>
>> There is no risk in monopolizing, other than the risk of getting caught.
>
>That's very naive. There are always risks.
Other than the risk of getting caught, no. If you have monopoly power,
anti-competitive actions increases your revenues. If you don't, they
don't, and you lose money.
>MS
>got blindsided by one; they forget that their
>competitors might try to manipulate the legal
>system to break them, rather than competing on
>merit.
Yea, worked really well, which is why nobody's developing .NET.
"Manipulate the legal system." Guffaw!
>> To minimize that risk, MS engineered a worthless consent decree to both
>> avoid prosecution and to allow Win95. Since MS lied, knowingly, in
>> claiming that Win95 ('Chicago' at the time) was a new OS, not merely a
>> combination of DOS and Windows, this caused such consternation that the
>> Circuit Appeals Court is still trying to sort out the mess.
>
>The DOS/Windows thing was settled some time ago by
>the appeals court, in Microsoft's favor. It may be a combination
>of DOS and Windows, but it's "integrated".
No, that wasn't settled at all; it was never brought to court, which is
what turned the consent decree into used toilet paper. It is most
probably "bolted", and the Appeals Court was aware of that, according to
the MS II decision.
>And it added a lot of new stuff, at that. It's not *just*
>DOS and Windows in a box together.
Well, just because the DOS or the Windows had new stuff doesn't mean
"it" (bolting them together) added anything. You really are gullible,
aren'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:
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: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:06 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 01 May 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >I don't see what point you think it proves. GEM was
>> >a real competitor during the days of Windows 1
>> >and Windows 2.
>>
>> Microsoft doesn't have competitors, only victims and those who are not
>> yet victims. At the time you suggest GEM was a 'real competitor', it
>> classified as the latter. Now it is the former.
>
>I think you are letting your, um, ideology show too much.
I don't have an ideology; just my reason. And I think my reason is
showing you to be a passive-aggressive troll who has an agenda of
apologizing for a criminal monopoly. Doh!
--
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
******************************
