Linux-Advocacy Digest #192, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (ssiso#pod)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Ayende
Rahien")
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!) ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) ("Ayende
Rahien")
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? ("~¿~")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: The Text of Craig Mundie's Speech ("~¿~")
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? ("Glitch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: women who pick criminals for mates are undesirable mates (Ich bin Americaner)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (Mig)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: ssiso#pod <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 4 May 2001 12:18:27 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron says...
>
>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
why?
>--
>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: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:04:46 +0200
"WesTralia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > An API is not complete without the documentation of what its function
does.
>
>
> An API, is an API, is an API! It's always nice to have a documented
> API, but whether an API is documented or not is absolutely exclusive
> of whether the API is complete or not.
A bunch of function declaration is not an API.
You need to know *what* those function does for it to be an API.
Sure, you can use a function declaration in your program, but I doubt that
incorporating std::vector<char> XDdasSR433(int,double,std::string); into
your code is going to be very helpful.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:16:24 +0200
"Stephen Edwards" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:aEeI6.310$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> > Chad Myers wrote:
>
> > > Hmm, a default Windows install is pretty functional for me.
> > >
> > > What specifically are you talking about?
> >
> > Lack of a decent command-line interface and a standard API like unix
> > has.
>
> Could you please expand on this? Exactly what is it that NT
> cannot do from the VDM that it can do from the GUI? If the
> VDM doesn't suit you, then what about CygWin32?
>
> Also, as far as standard APIs go, what is Win32 exactly, if
> it is not a standard API? From what I can tell, Microsoft
> software is THE standard out there these days. Sometimes I
> think that old-school UNIX users tend to live in the past,
> thinking that POSIX has more presence than it really does.
>
> Microsoft's standards are proprietary, but they are standards
> nonetheless. I simply don't understand why some people have
> a "POSIX-compliance or die" attitude. I can't even count on
> two hands anymore the amount of software that has been ported
> back and forth between POSIX and Win32, so why does it even
> matter much, if at all if an OS is POSIX.1-.3 compliant?
As a note, NT is POSIZ compliant.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse
me - d'oh!)
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:25:54 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 20:30:02
> >"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >When was Ada the next big thing?
> >I agree that the syntax can use improving, but the ideas on the basis of
Ada
> >are *very* good.
>
> A couple decades ago, the U.S. Government defined ADA as a standardized
> programming language. All work done for the gov't was to be done in
> ADA, the 'hardware neutral' programming language, the 'next big thing'.
I know what Ada is, and I know how badly the mandate was accepted.
I also know that there were many loopholes in it.
> You probably have a very interesting perspective on ADA, since you
> aren't from the U.S., and if you can stand the chance you'll become
> flame-bait, I'm sure that many here would like to hear your opinions and
> experiences in the subject. You're certainly the only programmer I've
> ever heard speak highly about it, mostly for the same reason you got an
> "ugh" from Tom. In the US, its customary to bad-mouth the thing,
> possibly only as a knee-jerk reaction that programmers always have when
> told that they "have" to do things a certain way.
That is indeed a problem.
However, Ada has a very good type check, all sort of fun stuff that you can
do with extending types, and a *really* tough compiling requirements.
Most of the Ada functionality can be done in C++, some of it you can't.
> So what do you know about Ada?
How to program in it.
That I adore the features that it gives me but despise the syntax because of
its ambiguity.
That I love the idea, but hate the implementation.
That it's a great language, but a nightmare to write a compiler to. (But
then, so is C++)
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:29:30 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> You have some verification this software isn't already in the Windows
> update software?
Yes.
No info is sent to microsoft statement.
As well as some understanding of how they do it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:33:38 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 01:14:57
> >For computer programmers, there is a terminology of their own, which
tries
> >not to leave ambiguaties
> >It would help if you told us what you *think* an API is, then we could
> >disillution you.
>
> The issue is not what I think an API is; I have an entirely correct
> understanding of the term. The discussion concerned copyright, and
> whether a program is derivative of a library which it requires.
State it.
It being what you think API is.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:33:41 +0200
"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9cu0ku$3hi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Stephen Edwards wrote in message ...
> >"Donn Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >Could you please expand on this? Exactly what is it that NT
> >cannot do from the VDM that it can do from the GUI? If the
> >VDM doesn't suit you, then what about CygWin32?
> >
>
> CygWin is an interesting system - in order to make NT command line work
like
> a real shell, you need to use ported utilites from Unix. One great
example
> is "ln" - NTFS has had support for hard links for years, yet the only way
to
> use them is either to pay for expensive third-party systems, or download a
> free port of a standard unix utility.
Or download a free shell extender that works quite well.
Or cobble together a ln application in about five minute?
------------------------------
From: "~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 20:35:04 GMT
"Mikkel Elmholdt" 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.
It may be non-scientific, but it hits the nail squarely on the head.
> 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.
Yes, it is very lame. I've been saying it in here since late 96, and I'm
still called a 'wintroll' because I think the state of linux advocacy sucks.
(cola mainly, but most elsewhere as well.)
> 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.
There are a few good folks here who do try to make a good case. I read their
posts and don't usually respond because I usually agree with them. Most of
the 'regulars' (easy to spot, look for the words 'luser', 'loseDos',
'winbloze', and so on ... ) --fit the third word in your above paragraph
rather succinctly.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:33:45 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 00:51:33
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
23:06:41
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> [...]
> >> >> A program which *requires* a library cannot be written until the
> >library
> >> >> has been sufficiently designed (whether this is coding or
documentation
> >> >> of the API is meaningless, which is the point you guys keep tripping
> >> >> over) to *base* the program on the functionality provided by the
> >> >> library. Thus, a program is derivative, in a legal copyright sense,
of
> >> >> the library, and no time travel is required to make it so.
> >> >
> >> >No, a program that *requires* a library cannot be written until the
> >> >library's API are known, nothing more is required.
> >>
> >> In theory. Not in practice. How many times do we have to go through
> >> this: YOU ARE JUST BEING IDEALISTIC.
> >
> >I *did* it, T. Max. You didn't, don't tell me it doesn't work in
practice.
>
> You are mistaken about what "it" is.
Programming to an API without implementation.
Possible, in practice, in fact, used just about everywhere in application
development.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:33:50 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 00:53:04
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
23:51:57
> >
> >> >That wasn't the requirement, remember?
> >> ><Qoute
> >url="http://groups.google.com/groups?oi=djq&ic=1&selm=an_699310481";>
> >> >How about you deliver a "simple
> >> >application" that does *both* associate multiple extensions with an
> >> >existing file type or a new file type, regardless of whether those
> >> >extension are registered with another existing file type. We'll see
how
> >> >non-simple it is, eh?
> >> ></Qoute>
> >>
> >> I presume that the word "application" means it is efficient, usable,
and
> >> worth the effort. You're little cobbled together piece of shit doesn't
> >> count. Doh!
> >
> >Here you go assuming again, if it run, it's an application.
>
> The adverb "simple" was supposed to give you a clue: I wouldn't have
> included it if "braindead" were acceptable.
Simple is simple, if you wanted complex, you should've asked for more
functionality.
> >It does what you asked for, it does so efficently, with as little code as
> >possible. You don't ask more than a programmer.
>
> I think you mean "from a programmer", and yes, indeed, I do.
No, you don't.
Answer this: The application does what you asked for, yes or no?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:33:57 +0200
"WesTralia" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
>
> [...]
>
> > An API is not complete without the documentation of what its function
does.
>
>
> An API, is an API, is an API! It's always nice to have a documented
> API, but whether an API is documented or not is absolutely exclusive
> of whether the API is complete or not.
A bunch of function declaration is not an API.
You need to know *what* those function does for it to be an API.
Sure, you can use a function declaration in your program, but I doubt that
incorporating std::vector<char> XDdasSR433(int,double,std::string); into
your code is going to be very helpful.
------------------------------
From: "~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Text of Craig Mundie's Speech
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 20:39:20 GMT
> > They do sound a little desperate, don't they?
> >
>
> Yeah. Desperate to shutdown GPL and *real* open source. Not the quasi open
> source MS is talking about.
>
> That article made me sick! How greedy and rapacious can a company be.
>
> Don't you just love the statement "this viral aspect". Like MS just wants
to
> Grab as much as they can for FREE have all the benefits and NOT allow
anyone
> else access to their code. If GPL has so many *significant* drawbacks
(they
> go on to equate OSS with the recent .com bubble) why in the hell is MS
even
> worrying about it.
Facts speak louder than the usual cola BS via its 'experts'. Someone who
knows a tad more about what the GPL and Open source are, said this:
"Open source is clearly a public benefit. However, software licensed under
the GNU General Public License, or GPL, is not truly open source. (The GPL
violates the non-discrimination clause of the Open Software Definition --
that's Clause 6 at opensource.org/docs/definition.html
-- because it allows use of code by end users but not by programmers. In
fact, it is intended, specifically, to prevent programmers from being
rewarded for their labors.)"
------------------------------
From: "Glitch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 16:47:25 -0400
In article <9cul6p$sj8$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mikkel Elmholdt"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9cujii$4c4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Mikkel Elmholdt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > "." <[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.
>>
>> Having been an active participant in usenet for the past 13 years, I
>> can say without a grain of doubt that you are absolutely incorrect.
>>
>> If you dont like the tone of this group, you are free to fuck off.
>>
>>
> Why, thanks for the free advice. BTW, did I object to the tone of this
> group? Or was it maybe the lack of focus of some postings? Your age-long
> usenet experience obviously has not taught you how to read.
>
> BTW2: Do you have a name?
>
he's the . in Microsoft.NET so i guess his name would be Microsoft
trailer trash (the . trails the word "microsoft")
------------------------------
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: Fri, 04 May 2001 17:03:40 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > Self-fulfilling prophecy.
> > > > 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.
> >
> > You are a retard. The per-processor licensing fees ARE restraint
> > of trade, you idiot.
>
> You say that, but you don't say they excluded anyone- nobody
> is saying that.
>
Those licenses exluded other OS's from being installed instead of
Windows.
> > Mafia$oft was found GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!
>
> Nobody has every conviced Microsoft of "per processor
> licensing".
>
> The recent farce was about bundling a browser with the OS.
>
The last action, which ended in a Consent Decree supposedly stopped
per-processor licenses because of their predatory nature.
> > That's why they signed a consent decree....and then went out and
> > did it again....with "per-system" licensing fees.
>
> You mean not realise this, but the point of signing a consent
> decree is often to avoid the whole "GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!"
> thing.
>
No kidding? Thats whay they signed? To avoid a guilty verdict?
> > And again, they were found GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!
>
> Yes, but of putting too many features in their OS, not of
> restraint of trade as you seem to understand the concept.
No. The guilty verdict showed that the "features" added to the OS were
predatory and anti-competitive in nature.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Ich bin Americaner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: women who pick criminals for mates are undesirable mates
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 14:03:52 -0700
On Thu, 03 May 2001 04:24:14 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Steve Chaney)
wrote:
>On Tue, 01 May 2001 02:32:14 GMT, "Deborah Terreson"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>----------
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Nomen Nescio
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> who is more likely to be a total failure with women?:
>>>
>>> a. a drug dealer
>>> b. a dumb jock
>>> c. a jerk
>>> d. a criminal
>>> e. a computer nerd
>>
>>
>>Damn, that's cold!
>
>Any woman who picks a criminal over a nerd is definitely a suicidal
>headcase that should not be swimming in the gene pool. The rest are pretty
>much borderline headcases but a woman who picks d) is undisputably the one
>to avoid having kids with
>
>or even close relations, for that matter.
Kinda brings meaning to the ol' ball and chain.
---
DNC - Disseminators of Nonsense and Crapola
------------------------------
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: Fri, 04 May 2001 17:08:34 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > 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.
>
> Because users had lots of DOS apps and they
> wouldn't switch if it means giving them up.
>
SO, Windows DID run on DOS.
> Running Windows on top of DOS means
> MS can say: "Of course all your DOS apps
> will work. Just exit Windows, and you are
> back in good old DOS just like always!"
>
> That was mandatory, and Windows just had
> to live with the consequence of it.
>
> [snip]
> > > That is emphatically true of DR-DOS.
> >
> > Since Windows ran on top of DOS. And DR-DOS was a better DOS than
> > MS-DOS, how can you support your point?
>
> Being a "better DOS than MS-DOS" is damning it with
> faint praise. MS-DOS was *terrible*; DR-DOS was
> only slightly less terrible.
>
Note: no response. I will ask again:
Since Windows ran on top of DOS. And DR-DOS was a better DOS than
MS-DOS, how can you support your point? (See above point)
> It's not for nothing that MS has spend the last
> fifteen years trying to kill DOS.
>
> [snip]
> > > But it was developers who made Windows
> > > king by writing the best apps for it. DOS
> > > apps couldn't compete; they didn't have the
> > > tools to match the quality that Windows apps
> > > could put out.
> >
> > Microsoft developers.
>
> Yes, those guys couldn't say "no" when Bill wanted
> Windows apps. In the days of Windows 1 and 2, that
> was important.
>
They also had inside info. Thats waht landed M$ in trouble.
> But no one company can provide enough software
> for Windows- not if you want Windows to be the
> universal OS for everything, anyway.
>
> MS was very good at soliciting developers for
> Windows- that, in my view, was the single biggest
> factor for Windows success over OS/2.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 21:09:04 GMT
On 04 May 2001 13:56:22 -0600, Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Or my personal favorites from recent history:
>
> o The new Windows Installer that makes you reboot BEFORE you install
> the application and then again AFTER. (fun!)
>
> o The Windows Software Update thingy, whereby when you click on
> certain upgrades it tells you something along the lines of:
>
> "This component can only be updated by itself.." blah blah blah
>
> so you end up rebooting like 5 times while "updating" a box.
> Meanwhile, Linux has been doing the exact same thing for YEARS
> with NO reboot at all.
>
One of my favorites is trying to help a friend with a deceased windows box and
finding that the "software packet" had nothing but legalize bullshit and no
install disc. Gotta save that 5 cent disc.
And then waiting 2 months whining and bitching to the computer maker to please
send a disc and finding that it won't install unless windows is already
installed.
Not user hostile. User vicious.
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 23:09:28 +0200
Mikkel Elmholdt wrote:
>> 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.
Youre wrong .. You seem to have missed people like "S", "Flatfish", "Amy",
"Chad Myers", "Conrad Rutherford/Jan Johansson" etc that at periods created
about 2/3 of new threads here. Besides, you have to answer even the most
stupid claims
>> 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 ....
Use deja.com :-)
>> >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?
Why do you open a thread in a group supposed to be about Linux advocacy
then?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
