Linux-Advocacy Digest #164, Volume #34 Thu, 3 May 01 17:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: KuKuNut, USA/USAF Doctrine for Airlift Operations? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (jim dutton)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (jim dutton)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Roberto Alsina)
Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity... (Craig Kelley)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Major Microsoft FUD tomorrow!! (Donn Miller)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code? ("Flacco")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Donn Miller)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:12:18 -0400
sisso#pod wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron says...
> >
> >Matthew Gardiner wrote:
> >>
> >> 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?
> >
> >L. Ron Hubbard, science fiction writer.
> >Created the religion "Dianetics" to win a bet.
> >
> >
>
> really?
>
Yes
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: KuKuNut, USA/USAF Doctrine for Airlift Operations?
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:14:35 -0400
WesTralia wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> >
> > WesTralia wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > WesTralia wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > billh wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Nah. Bill Hudson just doesn't want to admit that equipment is
>ROUTINELY
> > > > > > > > used in ways that lie outside their doctrinal classification.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Happens quit often, Kulkis. That doesn't change the fact of your idiocy
>in
> > > > > > > claiming the C130 is a strategic lift asset. You're a liar and a
>pathetic
> > > > > > > wannabe, KuKuNut. Nothing more, nothing less.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Let's see now.
> > > > > > http://www.google.com/search?q=strategic+C-130
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Separating the wheat from the chaff, we get a mighty fine array of
>citations:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/c-130.htm
> > > > > > http://www.spectrumwd.com/c130/int_05.htm
> > > > > > http://www.spectrumwd.com/c130/int_02.htm
> > > > > > http://www.sunnersberg.com/c1_c3_hercules.htm
> > > > > > http://www.rin.org.uk/env/personnel.html
> > > > > > http://british-forces.com/cig/aircraft/c-130.html
> > > > > > http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/SSG/dd77148e.html
> > > > > > http://www.gdls.com/releases/IAV_Specsheet.pdf
> > > > > > http://news.lmasc.com/article.htm?article_id=57
> > > > > > http://www.monmouth.army.mil/monmessg/newmonmsg/mar102000/10plane.htm
> > > > > > http://www.tea.army.mil/dpe/Aircraft.htm
> > > > > > http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/55-65/ch4.pdf
> > > > > > http://www.ado.army.mil/weapons/firesupt/lw155.htm
> > > > > > http://enterpriseconsultancy.cs.amedd.army.mil/asp/result.asp?I=36296091947
> > > > > > http://call.army.mil/products/trngqtr/tq1-00/chapc.htm
> > > > > > http://www.mcguire.af.mil/PA/news/21stfact.htm
> > > > > > http://books.nap.edu/books/0309063787/html/134.html#pagetop
> > > > > >
> > > > > > GAME
> > > > > > SET
> > > > > > MATCH
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The only thing, and I do mean the only thing that you have proven is
> > > > > that anyone with access to a search engine can become a half-wit
> > > > > expert on any subject.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > So, you are claiming that the Commander of the 21st Air Force,
> > > > the Commander of the Air Force, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff
> > > > didn't know what the fuck they were doing when they designated
> > > > the C-130's in the 21st Air Force as Strategic Airlift.
> > > >
> > > > Bwwwwwwwwwwahahahahahaha.
> > >
> > > Yeah Aaron, that is *EXACTLY* what I am claiming, along with me being
> > > a decorated veteran of WWI, WWII, the Korean War, Vietnam, The Gulf
> > > War, and I am still only 18 years old and own a fortune 500 company.
> > >
> > > Aaron, you are truly a clown who has become disconnected from his
> > > rubber nose.
> > >
> >
> > The facts (ALL from official sources, as cited above) say that
> > I'm right.
> >
> > The C-130 *IS* used as a strategic lift platform.
> >
>
> Oh, what am I arguing with you for! You missed the boat completely
> on what I was pointing out.
You don't even know what the fuck you were going on about...
>
> Now, when are you going to put the string 'WesTralia' in your .sig
> somewhere? I have put in an honest effort, I have earned it.
Anybody who actively campaigns for the position is unqualified.
>
> --
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jim dutton)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.support.fat-acceptance
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 3 May 2001 19:14:09 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nomen Nescio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>t. max fagass:
>> Said Brent R in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 17:10:40 GMT;
>> >Nomen Nescio wrote:
>> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ian Davey) wrote:
>> >> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > >> >SO what? A small chance is better than ZERO, is it not? If a person
>> >> > >> >is gay, then "more gays" is good for that person, _period_.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> 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?
>> >> >
>> >> > So if I get you right, you can allow yourself to be seduced by
>someone of the
>> >> > same sex whilst having no attraction to members of that sex? Do you have
>> >> > experience of this?
>> >>
>> >> he does. it involved a russian paratrooper who went by the name 'irina'
>> >> though he also liked to be called mr. frufru.
>> >> many hamsters knew what it was to roast in the flames of thier passion
>> >> on that day i can tell you.
>> >> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
>> >>
>> >> men fear thought as they fear nothing else on earth - more than ruin,
>> >> more even than death
>> >> - bertrand russell
>> >
>> >
>> >Can someone please tell me how a post titled "Why Linux Is no threat to
>> >Windows domination of the desktop" turned into a debate about
>> >homosexuality????
>>
>> It says its name is 'jackie tokeman'.
>>
>> >This is what I mean about the sheer entertainment value of this NG!
>>
>> Jackie isn't near as entertaining as Chad Myers or any of the other
>> trolls. He just doesn't have the mental competence, and just starts
>> calling people "fag-ass" and "homo" as soon as he feels threatened.
>
>that's something homosexuals say.
> jackie 'anakin' tokeman
Jackie may I suggest you look into a chastity belt for your dirigibile/ass?
-Jeem, ya can't post anything w/o gay guys swarming
========================================================================
http://www.ejeem.com Autococker2000/Dye SS
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
"The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little long
er. " -- Henry Kissinger
========================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (jim dutton)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 3 May 2001 19:16:14 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
>>
>> Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> >> >> The intolerance of homosexuals is a much higher level thing and can
>> >> >> easily be changed.
>> >> >
>> >> > how's that working out for you?
>> >>
>> >> Well, I haven't tried to make many people more tolerant, because the
>> >> people I am friends with have enough of a moral sense to realise that
>> >> blind prejudice is wrong.
>> >
>> >Evaluating people on their behavior is NOT prejudice...it is postjudice
>>
>> But being a homosexual is not behavior any more than being heterosxual
>> is.
>
>Sticking your penis in some guy's anus isn't behavior?
Jesus christ Ray. You write like chaney ya horn dog.
-Jeem, HTH
========================================================================
http://www.ejeem.com Autococker2000/Dye SS
Steatopygias's 'R' Us. doh#0000000005 That ain't no Hottentot.
Sesquipedalian's 'R' Us. ZX-10. DoD#564. tbtw#6. s.s.m#8. There ain't no more
When I found the skull in the woods, the first thing I did was call the police.
But then I got curious about it. I picked it up, and started wondering who
this person was, and why he had deer horns. - Jack Handey
========================================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Date: 3 May 2001 19:21:52 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:05:40 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>billh wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>>
>> > Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> > You claim to be in the United States.
>>
>> LOL!!! Pathetic, KuKu, just pathetic.
>
>Bill Hudson, senile never-been, displaying his ignorance as usual.
I am sure, then, it will be very easy for you to show the post where
I claimed to be in the United States.
Of course it's way more likely you will pretend I didn't post this,
or just pretend that I did without showing any evidence.
Then again, I don't think lying is beneath you.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity...
Date: 03 May 2001 13:34:41 -0600
Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[snippage]
> If this is flatfish, it confirms most of what I've thought about him:
> that he really is a Linux user, and he's just trolling the group for
> fun.
>
> So 'fess up, flatfish. Is this you?
If it is, he has some serious mental problems.
Oh wait, we already knew that... ;)
But seriously, the John fellow mentions that he used Redhat all the
time, and complains about kgcc -- I don't think our troll even knows
what kgcc is, and I can't recall him ever trying RedHat (and
complaining about it).
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 19:38:45 GMT
Mart van de Wege wrote:
>> Windows _asks_ you before you change the time. Did you blindy accept it
>> or did you bother to _read_ what it was about to do?
>>
> No it bloody well doesn't Pete (at least 9x doesn't). Trust me, I had
> *exactly* the same experience when I was still dual-booting.
Funny, mine did.
--
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 15:59:05 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Major Microsoft FUD tomorrow!!
mlw wrote:
> He is, after all, talking to a congressman. What else would they be talking
> about. By and large, members of congress are to lowest of low. Look at the
> statistics on arrests, bounced checks, spousal beatings, etc.
You mean Clinton isn't the only scumbag who has ever held a government
position?! Huh!! Starr spent many $$$'s of our tax money writing a
huge document to impeach Clinton. The irony is that the purpose of the
document was to expose what a sleaze Clinton was, while the document
itself has all kinds of in-depth lurid details that was all over the
news, where kids could see this crap. Starr, Clinton, Bush (both of
them), Reagan - I have no use for any of these glorified pieces of
trailer trash!
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 20:23:48 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001
> >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?
MS had those licenses becuase some of its OEMs
liked them, and MS knows better than to even think
of offending its OEMs.
> >It's my opinion that Compaq is probably right about that.
>
> So you wouldn't know, is that what you're saying?
:D
I'm afraid I must simply take Compaq's word for it.
> >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.
Come, come. Do you think anyone is going to believe
that just because you said it?
I think you overesitmate your credibility.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 20:23:49 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001
[snip]
> >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?
Oh, I don't grin: I pronounce ":D".
It doesn't get me punched. Confused looks, sure, but
that's something else. :D
> >> 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.
Fortunately, you won't find too many of *those* on
these newsgroups! :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 20:23:49 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> 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.
Indeed.
I think you'd be well advised to keep you, uh,
"reason" under wraps. It does not enhance your
credibility much.
> 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!
I may say this isn't the first time I've been called
a "passive agressive" troll.
What the heck does it mean? Is it a bad thing?
The "passive agressive" part, I mean. I know
all about trolling. :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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 20:23:51 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> >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.
They waited for several years after *that* before
bolting Windows and DOS together.
Clearly they were taking no chances.
> The first two versions weren't just crap: they
> weren't DOS extensions.
How do you figure?
> 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.
But they do keep trying. Persistance, that's what
you've gotta love about Microsoft. :D
By the way, what sort of smilie do you prefer? :) ? :> ? ^v^ ?
> >Until then, MS would sell DOS and Windows
> >separately.
>
> No, they'd sell DOS, and try desperately to get someone to buy Windows.
I don't think they were really desparate, do you?
[snip]
> >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).
I think you are mistaken about this.
[snip]
> >> 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.
Internal communcations?
I'm sure MS talked about linking the products- they must have
done in order to actually *do* the integration job they ultimately
did.
But these things took time to implement.
> Even after the bundling became "official" with Win95, the price remained
> at the cost level of both, the first obvious sign of monopoly pricing.
I'm surprised. I'd have expected MS to want a profit
margin there. Pricing at cost doesn't seem sensible for
Windows. You sure about this?
> >> 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.
An insignificance. DOS gave them no influence over anything of
consequence; they needed Windows for that.
[snip]
> >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.
What a *refreshingly* simple view you have there.
> >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.
I didn't say MS couldn't cope. :D
> "Manipulate the legal system." Guffaw!
It's no laughing matter!
[snip]
> >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.
You sure "bolted" isn't just another way to say
"integrated"?
> >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?
Perhaps. Or perhaps I understand software development well
enough to know why cutting DR-DOS off at the knees as they
did was a very good idea.
MS hadn't been able to manage that until Windows 95 did it.
------------------------------
From: "Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why is Microsoft opening more Windows source code?
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 20:34:41 GMT
> Of course, you know they're going to think open source is bad, because
> they're a producer of closed-source software, much like we think
> closed-source software is bad.
I don't think either is bad. I think it's just ridiculous for the market
to pay for something that can be built just as well - or better - by
volunteers.
I also think it's ridiculous to submit to licensing terms that are
stunningly restrictive. I don't mind paying for software, but I want some
freedom to do what I want with it, and I don't want to be constrained by
terms that are just monumentally stupid.
For example, if I buy a Windows license, I want the freedom to use that
software in perpetuity on any single machine I so desire. I want to be
able to move that copy of software to my next machine - legally.
I also want software THAT DOES NOT PHONE HOME to the vendor unless I
explicitly allow it to. And I want to know IN FULL what information is
transferred to the vendor. This mandatory activation crap is simply
unacceptable to me.
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 16:44:35 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> Windows _asks_ you before you change the time. Did you blindy accept it
> or did you bother to _read_ what it was about to do?
Depends - does Windows ask you if you use certain Winapi calls to set
the time?
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 20:56:51 GMT
On Thu, 3 May 2001 14:46:51 +1200, Matthew Gardiner
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Do you have ANY IT experience?
>
>Matthew Gardiner
You would be amazed if I told you where I was in 1979, but I won't. I
will say that I was 19yo so at least you have a clue as to how long I
have been involved in I/T.
flatfish
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 20:57:15 GMT
On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:20 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
>>And your posts are growing more and more obtuse by the day.
>
>Yes, I know.
>
>>Do you ever actually say anything with all of those words you type in
>>or are they randomly generated by some LinoCrap babble program?
>
>You can't even get it when I go slow, can you?
GIGO.
Speed has no effect.
flatfish
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
