Linux-Advocacy Digest #186, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 12:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (.)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity... (.)
Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity... (.)
Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity... (.)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? ("Mikkel Elmholdt")
Re: De we need (or is there) a GPL Legal Defense Fund ? (Nick Condon)
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: De we need (or is there) a GPL Legal Defense Fund ? (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Yet another IIS security bug (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars. (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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: 4 May 2001 15:18:04 GMT
Mikkel Elmholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Peter K=F6hlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Mikkel Elmholdt wrote:
>> >
>> > Any damn fool can bash Microsoft ..... but try to put up a compellin=
g
>> > case for the use of Linux, would be a more challenging task, at least
>> > for the majority of posters here.
>> >
>> Any damn fool can bash linux or its proponents.
>> But to put up a compelling cas for the use of wintendo would be a more
>> challenging task, at least for Mikkel.
> Wow, that response was really something! A masterpiece in logical deduct=
ion
> and original thinking. (or perhaps more like "oh yeah, well, eeehr, ....
> same to you, motherf*****!)
> Did it ever for a minute occur to you, Peter, that I would not care to p=
ut
> forward a compelling case for Windows? (that's actually the name for the
> platform, only immature morons use silly nicknames). Advocating Linux is=
not
> the same as bashing Windows.
> I was merely looking for the Linux advocates to advocate the use of Linu=
x.
> Can you do that?
Apparantly youre new to usenet. Advocacy groups ARE bashing groups, slapn=
uts.
Now go away.
=====.
--=20
"Great babylon has fallen, fallen, fallen;
Jerusalem has fallen, fallen, fallen!
The great, Great Beast is DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!"
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 11:18:45 -0400
Peter Köhlmann wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
begin
"JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner> wrote:
> Linux. The newsreaders especially suck. Half the no-name browsers are
> somehow or for some stupid reason configured by default to display web
Note that this will not be readable just as is by the sucking newsreader
JS PL is using.
Peter
end
--
If you can only see this signature, this article is not supported by
MS Outlook Express standard versions.
Which part of the message wasn't I supposed to see? Surely this is a stock
install of Win98 and nothing was done to Outlook Express. And it's an older
version at that. You should test out your claims before making an ass of
yourself.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:21:49 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > DR-DOS only looks good next to MS-DOS. It's junk
> > next to Windows.
>
> Reqlly? Why?
It's feature poor, for one thing. No printing
services- that's a big one for desktop apps. Nor
GUI services either, of course. The file
services are weak too- no structured storage,
no file mapping. And don't forget your 8.3
file names.
The memory management is a big deal too. DR-DOS
is terrible; You've got that nasty business of the
20-bit real mode address space. You can punch
into protected mode, but you have to go back to
use what services DR-DOS provides.
It really is a clone of MS-DOS. It doesn't have much
to offer than MS-DOS does not, and that's a sad
state of affairs.
[snip]
> > > CP/M was not second rate. MS-DOS was a "poor-cousin" clone.
> >
> > Actually it was. CP/M needed a serious upgrade to make it on
> > the IBM PC, because it was written for an earlier CPU that
> > only could access 64k of memory.
>
> Then explain whay IBM wanted CP/M first. Gates even steered IBM to
> Digital first.
IBM did not know that QDOS even existed. They knew
CP/M did, and they figured it could be adapted (which was
true)
Gates steered IBM to Digital because they didn't then
have a OS product to sell, and Digital Research did- and
Gates really really didn't want to lose BASIC contract.
When DR didn't come through, Gates *still* really really
didn't want to lose the BASIC contract, and went into the
OS business to save it.
Bear in mind that back then, on the 8-bit micros, BASIC
was a much bigger deal than a bunch of lousy disk access
services.
> > DR-DOS did eventually produce this- it was called
> > CP/M-86, I think. But I don't think it was ready when
> > IBM tried to cut a deal with them.
>
> IBM tried to get CP/M first. Get your history straight.
Yes, they did. They knew it would have to be adapted
for their new platform. They expected Digital Research
would do this for them.
> > > Unix was/is not second rate.
> >
> > A fine server OS (well, bunch of OSes), but it simply
> > doesn't even begin to cut it on the desktop.
>
> Why doesnt it make it on the desktop?
Lousy support for desktop apps. It just doesn't offer
desktop app developers the services they need to match
apps written to other OSes, like Windows.
Sure, it's not bad as DR-DOS. But it's still not up
to snuff.
We all know about the state of the widgets, so lets
not belabor that.
X-Windows is better than nothing, but it's a weak
graphics layer. Sure, for server admin tools that
remote-display trick is great- but for desktop apps
it does matter. X isn't resolution independant,
and has weak font support. It's kinda feature
poor in general, though there are always
add-ons for it.
Also, It doesn't provide decent printing services.
Nothing like the device independant printing support
users now expect.
It doesn't have a stable shell to write for. Not unless
you count bash. What I mean is something like Explorer
or WPS, which an app can integrate itself into.
It does not have structured storage.
It has a standard help engine, but that engine is 'man'.
Need I say more?
[snip]
> > > Linux is not second rate.
> >
> > It's just like Unix.
>
> Somewhat.
It's a lot like Unix. If there's a difference
that's relevant to desktop application
development, I've not heard of it.
True, for *server* apps there are
important differences. I don't mean to sweep
that under the rug. But for desktop apps?
I don't see it.
[snip]
> I mean, BeOS wouldnt have been second rate.
I know what you said; I don't know what
you meant.
Wouldn't under what circumstances?
[snip]
> > > Lotus 1-2-3 was not second rate.
> >
> > Well, no, but they stuck to DOS too long-
> > and this limited them. Excel was able to do
> > things Lotus could not because it could leverage
> > Windows techology.
>
> Hence the accusations that MS engineers got info before competitors.
Yes, they found themselves needing an excuse.
The stuff Lotus needed was documented long before
Windows 3 ever came out. We're talking Windows 1
stuff here.
[snip]
> > DOS desktop apps aren't competitive
> > with Windows apps- they don't have the
> > tools to be.
>
> What do you mean?
Windows provides a lot of services for desktop
apps. Rolling your own is not practical- you wind
up having to do without, if you write to DOS.
If you do that, you are not going to measure up.
[snip]
> > That's why Lotus and Wordperfect's
> > supposition that they could sit on their
> > dominance of DOS was so mistaken.
>
> They did not sit. MS leveraged its knowledge about WIndows and captured
> the Windows applicaion market.
No. They *sat*. Windows and Microsoft's Windows
apps had been around for years before Windows 3 began
to take off. Lotus and Wordperfect just didn't see
why this was *important*. They didn't move their
butts until *after* Windows had taken off.
And then they had to play catch up. It takes *time*
to learn how to write applications in the then-new
GUI style. Their first efforts were pretty weak. So
were Microsoft's, of course, but those were ancient
history by then.
The knowledge MS really leveraged was their experience
writing Mac apps- something Lotus and Wordperfect
had not done. They didn't see why it mattered.
> > > Go system was not second rate.
> >
> > I'm not so sure. *None* of the pen based OSes
> > have been good enough to catch fire yet. Not
> > that Microsoft's attempts have been any better.
>
> Go was better. Pen Windows sucked.
I'm no expert. I know PenWindows had
the advantage of letting you share a codebase
with your desktop applications, and that
is no small thing for developers.
But it obviously wasn't enough to make
PenWindows successful.
> > As far as I know Go's product wasn't any
> > worse than anyone else's though.
>
> There really werent any other pen based systems in the US market untill
> Go. Then MS squashed GO and produced a putrid pen system.
MS *competed* with Go, and frankly they *both* lost.
At least you realize now that PenWindows wasn't vapor.
[snip]
> > > Becasue the other testimony showed Microsoft has a history of
> > > manipulating the industry.
> >
> > Well, at least it showed that MS's competitors didn't like
> > MS very much. :D
>
> If someone continually stabbed you in the back, would like them?
No. MS doesn't "continually" stab people in the back- it
picks its moment and goes for maximum effect.
The way the doublecrossed IBM was classic.
But it's really the exception, not the rule
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity...
Date: 4 May 2001 15:22:41 GMT
Aaron Ginn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
*snip some nice detective work*
And the final bit of evidence; check out originating ips.
Not only are they very close, but in some cases they match.
=====.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity...
Date: 4 May 2001 15:23:26 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Things must be VERY SLOW at Motorola these days :(
> Flatfish
Careful, that kinda thing is likely to get youre phone number posted.
=====.
--
"Great babylon has fallen, fallen, fallen;
Jerusalem has fallen, fallen, fallen!
The great, Great Beast is DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity...
Date: 4 May 2001 15:24:01 GMT
Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Flatfish is a girl.
You think so?
=====.
--
"Great babylon has fallen, fallen, fallen;
Jerusalem has fallen, fallen, fallen!
The great, Great Beast is DEAD! DEAD! DEAD! DEAD!"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:32:19 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Rick
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 03 May 2001 21:57:29 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > > > 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.
>> > >
>> > > DR-DOS only looks good next to MS-DOS. It's junk
>> > > next to Windows.
>> >
>> > Considering that DR-DOS was never meant to be a GUI, but, in fact,
>> > a platform which could, among other things RUN windows on it...
>>
>> DR-DOS, like MS-DOS, was a lousy platform for
>> something like Windows, never mind desktop
>> applications.
>>
>
>Then you might want to eplain why Windows ran on top of DOS.
Windows and DOS had a special relationship, but Windows has its
own ideas (VMM32.VXD more or less runs the show, calling down
to DOS only occasionally on an "as-need" basis, but high-traffic
areas such as disk I/O are natively handled).
It turns out MS-DOS knows about Windows, as well, according to
Andrew Schullman (_Unauthorized Windows95_).
[rest snipped]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 4d:21h:35m actually running Linux.
[ ] Check here to always compile your own software.
------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 17:33:27 +0200
"Ian Davey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9cu8nu$8dv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mikkel Elmholdt"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >A quick (and non-scientific) overview of this newsgroup reveals that the
> >majority of posts are related to anti-Microsoft topics and not to the
> >official topic of the newsgroup, namely advocating the virtues of Linux.
>
> I'm sure it would be, if there weren't so many people trolling Windows
> advocacy through here.
Actually, it seems to me that the number of posts bashing Windows vastly
outnumbers the Linux bashers here. But even so, you do have the right to
ignore such postings.
> >It's a well-known fact, that if you cannot really come up some good
> >arguments for your case, then you can always fall back on hammering on
your
> >opponents weaknesses. Is that the case here? If it is, then I find it
rather
> >lame.
>
> Most of it is in response to said trolling.
Hmmmm ...... maybe. But if I look at the most recent postings, we have
within 24 hours these:
"If Windows is supposed to be so "thoroughly" tested..."
"The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT"
"Windows NT: lost in space?"
"Windos is *unfriendly*"
All MS bashing to boot. I failed to find any initial Linux bashing threads
in the same period, however. Totally non-scientific statistics, I know, but
still ....
> >Any damn fool can bash Microsoft ..... but try to put up a compelling
case
> >for the use of Linux, would be a more challenging task, at least for the
> >majority of posters here.
>
> So, are you going to do some Linux advocacy then?
No. I don't see myself as a Linux advocate, so why should I advocate Linux?
Mikkel
------------------------------
From: "Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 17:36:49 +0200
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cuh7c$nr9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Apparantly youre new to usenet. Advocacy groups ARE bashing groups,
slapnuts.
> Now go away.
Apparently you're a moron. Bashing groups are stuff like
alt.destroy.microsoft or alt.linux.sux.
Have a nice day.
Mikkel
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Nick Condon)
Subject: Re: De we need (or is there) a GPL Legal Defense Fund ?
Date: 4 May 2001 15:39:30 GMT
Interconnect wrote:
>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> I'm sure the Free Software Foundation will see to it that the GPL
>> is actually heeded.
>
>Hmmm, I'm starting to worry about MS being able to STOP GPL.
>
>I wonder if MS took the concept to court if they could stop the whole
>process? They sure do have a boat load of money.
Nobody gains from challenging the GPL in court, so it will never happen.
Suppose MS took some GPL'd software and wrapped in up into Windows. Let's
pluck an example out of the air and say it was a TCP/IP stack. The FSF says
"Whoa! you can't do that, that's a violation of the GPL!". Microsoft flips
them the finger and says "See you in court". Microsoft wins and the GPL is
exposed as rubbish. What happpens then? The copyright is still held by the
author (or perhaps the FSF). Microsoft now has no license to distribute the
code *at all*. The GPL is no more. RIP.
Net result for everyone is a lose, so nobody will allow it to go that far.
--
Nick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:40:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, pip
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 04 May 2001 15:28:52 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>
>Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>
>> Mikkel Elmholdt wrote:
>> >
>> > Any damn fool can bash Microsoft ..... but try to put up a compelling
>> > case for the use of Linux, would be a more challenging task, at least
>> > for the majority of posters here.
>> >
>> Any damn fool can bash linux or its proponents.
>> But to put up a compelling cas for the use of wintendo would be a more
>> challenging task, at least for Mikkel.
>
>Games (Wintendo does this well if not rather expensive) && Websurfing &&
>Music (MIDI) programs && device drivers
You forgot office work (Access, Office2000, SQL Server).
Mind you, all of these things can be done with Linux, and in some cases
more cheaply and reliably. PostgreSQL, for example, is an excellent
small-scale data retrieval system.
>
>In fact there are quite a few merits, but quality and reliability are
>not some of them :)
>
>Of course if you have two PC's and/or duel boot you can have the best of
>both worlds.
But not simultaneously. :-) (Although if Wine really gets nice and
polished -- and its not bad, now -- one could do quite a bit. Or one
can go the VmWare route, running an OS-within-an-OS.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 4d:22h:55m actually running Linux.
Life's getting too complicated, even listening to the radio.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: De we need (or is there) a GPL Legal Defense Fund ?
Date: 4 May 2001 15:41:08 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nick Condon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Interconnect wrote:
>>Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>
>>> I'm sure the Free Software Foundation will see to it that the GPL
>>> is actually heeded.
>>
>>Hmmm, I'm starting to worry about MS being able to STOP GPL.
>>
>>I wonder if MS took the concept to court if they could stop the whole
>>process? They sure do have a boat load of money.
>
>Nobody gains from challenging the GPL in court, so it will never happen.
>
>Suppose MS took some GPL'd software and wrapped in up into Windows. Let's
>pluck an example out of the air and say it was a TCP/IP stack. The FSF says
>"Whoa! you can't do that, that's a violation of the GPL!". Microsoft flips
>them the finger and says "See you in court". Microsoft wins and the GPL is
>exposed as rubbish. What happpens then? The copyright is still held by the
>author (or perhaps the FSF). Microsoft now has no license to distribute the
>code *at all*. The GPL is no more. RIP.
>
>Net result for everyone is a lose, so nobody will allow it to go that far.
Actually, the judge could declare the GPL only partially void, or
partially unenforcable. The judge could, for example, declare
that none of the "you must give away the code" stuff is
valid, and turn it into something like the BSDL.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Yet another IIS security bug
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:45:48 GMT
Said Paolo Ciambotti in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 03 May 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Unknown"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Only because they were previously and are still heavily into IBM's "big
>> iron". While I do not denigrate OS/2 on its merits (its vastly superior
>> to MS crapware), I think its only fair to point out that the bulk of its
>> popularity is in "true blue" shops, who buy it based on the fact the IBM
>> makes it, rather than any actual competitive merits.
>
>But if the purchases *were* made on competitive merit, OS/2 would likely
>win by a landslide. Why? The client requirements are very narrow,
>heavily tied into IBM as you've noted, and the banking industry needs an
>impenetrable, highly available, dependable client. As much as I favour
>Linux, if I worked at a bank I'd have to vote for OS/2 in any competetive
>bid situation.
If it was already a blue shop, I'd agree. Nice assessment, in fact.
>Yeah, you *can* sink a screw with a hammer, but it's just wrong.
Linux is a Dremel tool; OS/2 is just a safe bet if you've got an AS/400.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles,soc.men,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:45:50 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 04 May 2001 01:13:36 GMT;
[...]
>You're and idiot. Learn to read. [...]
Learn to take flame-wars to email. You're boring the shit out of me,
here.
--
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: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:45:52 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > 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.
>>
>> Self-fulfilling prophecy.
>
>I don't see how. If they misjudge the market, some
>other vendor will get those sales.
>
>It's not like every vendor signed up to those
>per-processor OEM licenses. Some obviously
>saw things differently than Compaq.
Please name the top 20 OEM that does not have a ppl.
>> By the way, signing contract to EXCLUDE other vendors is illegal.
>
>Nobody is claiming MS did this, you know. Even
>you have not, not that I've seen.
I'm afraid you're wrong; we just aren't foolish enough to expect that MS
did it directly. Not that we can be sure, given the thickness of the
NDAs.
--
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: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:45:53 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
[...]
>My point is that Microsoft's competition is
[...]
Not the issue. The issue is Microsoft's anti-competitive activity.
--
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: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:45:56 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > DR-DOS, like MS-DOS, was a lousy platform for
>> > something like Windows, never mind desktop
>> > applications.
>>
>> You are truly an idiot.
>>
>> Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.1, 3.11, 95, and 98 ALL run ON TOP OF DOS.
>>
>> It really doesn't matter if it's MS-DOS or DR-DOS, if you remove
>> the DOS from it, it will not run.
>
>Well, sorta. Even Windows 1 did provide
>its own memory manager of sorts.
No, it didn't. It attempted to provide task-switching. That isn't
"memory management".
>As you go down that list of OS, Windows
>subsumes more and more of DOS's functions.
>There's not a lot left in Windows 98.
Or, rather, every version MS pretends that more of it is Windows and
less of it is DOS, because they want Windows to be thought of as the OS.
Despite the obvious fact that it is being tied to the DOS OS that makes
Windows98 what it is; an albatross. MS is putting MASSIVE money into
trying desperately to migrate their customers to non-DOS OSes without
losing the DOS monopoly. Not as easy as it sounds, obviously, based on
their lack of success. Its kind of tough to look at the price tag (and
the potential for having to pay it over and over at Microsoft's sole
discretion) of W2K or XP and then consider Linux, and come up with the
brain-dead idea that its a good idea to stay locked into a monopoly, no
matter how locked in you might already be. No sense getting even deeper
in the hole.
When you're in over your head, the trick is to stop digging.
--
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: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:45:57 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
[...]
>Hmmmmm? Did MS write contracts excluding
>Digital Research?
>
>First I've heard of it.
Apparently, you're just the last to know.
--
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: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:45:58 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
>"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
The phrase "gibbering idiot" comes to mind.
>> >> 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
I find lots of them. Apparently, pointing out how pathetically wrong
jackasses like you are is quite a popular past-time, if something of a
guilty pleasure.
--
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: Fri, 04 May 2001 15:45:59 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > > I'm sure this is just the tip of the iceberg of the mass
>> > > of symptoms which identify you as a complet and utter moron.
>> >
>> > Everything I know I learned from Victor Borge!
>>
>> Too bad you missed 99% of what Borge taught.
>
>That's true, I was never again good with a piano.
You forgot the smiley, moron.
--
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
******************************
