Linux-Advocacy Digest #194, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 18:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: The Text of Craig Mundie's Speech (Craig Kelley)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Matt Kennel)
Re: Bill Hudson admits that he, Dave Casey, V-man and Redc1c4 are
liars. ("billh")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 17:31:46 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "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.
>
You keep saying IS. Why? This has to do with WAS. As in Windows 1.0 -
3.1.
Now, are you also saying you cant printing wasnt possible under DR-DOS?
Or that any GUI that ran on DOS would run on DR-DOS? You might also
rmember that Windows STILL struggles with 8.3.
> 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.
>
You keep saying IS. get in the right time frame. When DR-DOS was
actively being developed it -lead- MS-DOS in features.
> [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)
>
You are saying IBM wanted CP/M first because they didnt know about QDOS?
> 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.
>
Like what? And what does developer issues have to d with -using- it on
the desktop?
> 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?
>
If it had managed to get even a "niche" marketshare.
> [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.
>
Tell that to the rest of the industry that lined up agains Micro$oft.
> 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.
>
... and they leveraged the inside info on the APIs, as well as
leveraging their ownership of the OS to allow forced bundling.
> > > > 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.
>
Competed? Competed/ Let's see. Microsoft sent an employee to a Go demo.
That employee videotaped the demo and went back to Micro$oft. M$ then
wrote code that duplicated the demo na dpreannounced a prodct they didnt
even have, which froze the market. And the product they finally did ship
SUCKED.
> At least you realize now that PenWindows wasn't vapor.
>
It was when M$ pre-announced it.
> [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.
>
"A lot of people make the analogy that competing with Bill Gates is like
playing hardbal. I'd say it's more like being in a knofe fight."- Gary
Clow, STAC CEO.
> The way the doublecrossed IBM was classic.
>
It was deceitful, immoral andf unethical.
> But it's really the exception, not the rule
It is their modus operandi.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 17:38:59 -0400
JS PL wrote:
>
> Rick wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >JS PL wrote:
> >>
> >> T. Max Devlin wrote in message
> >>
> >> >>A fine server OS (well, bunch of OSes), but it simply
> >> >>doesn't even begin to cut it on the desktop.
> >>
> >> Agreed. After spending about four days being amused by Mandrake 8, it
> STILL
> >> doesn't even begin to cut it on the desktop.
> >
> >Why is that? Wjat is it missing?
> >
> >> I would almost venture to say
> >> that just about ALL of the included apps that I use crash regularly on
> >> Linux.
> >
> >Would you please name them. And if the crash regularly you could always
> >notify the app maintainers, so they can fix the problems.
> >
> >> The newsreaders especially suck.
> >
> >Which newsreaders and how do they suck?
>
> Netscape collabra - Always opens with article window crammed into the right
> 10 pixels and needs resized. Then each time I open it I need to go into the
> menu and expand threads.
>
Collabra? I dont see it listed in Netscape/PowerPC. I'll look on my
Mandrake install on the laptop.
> Pan newsreader, continually downloads half the newsgroups, stalls, and
> starts over. It's should be called "Pan Partial List Downloader" instead.
>
I use Pan to DL binaries. I only DL from one group at a time, but I
havent had any trouble. I'll try DLing from multiple groups.
> Mozilla - The best of them except apparently won't post to more than one
> group at a time, at least that's the error message I get when I hit send
> and....it doesn't. I don't have time for that. Oh.. and it doesn't "search"
> for groups using partial names.
>
Mozilla is -beta-. Searching or not is not crashing or not displaying
properly.
> Knode - I forget what, but it was problematic or I'd be using it.
>
> >> Half the no-name browsers are
> >> somehow or for some stupid reason configured by default to display web
> text
> >> at about 2 pixels in height, this is especially a pain in the ass because
> I
> >> have to go in and configure larger font display for every damn user.
> >
> >Which browsers are these? Opera doesnt. Konquorer doesnt. Netscape
> >doesnt.
>
> Netscape does. Don't make me walk accross the room to check them all.
>
OK. I see what you mean. I didnt readit correctly before. If I am
reading this correctly now, you want Netscape to have one setting for
ALL users - so that users can set up their own preferences. Why?
> >> File downloads regularly "stall" for minutes on end.
> >> Did I say regularly? I meant ALWAYS!
> >
> >Are these modem DLs, ethernet DLs, what. Is your system configured
> >properly? IS your ISP's? My ISP wasnt. I switched to a different modem
> >bank and havent had any trouble.
>
> I don't care what the problem is. I prefer an OS that works well without all
> the hours of configuration.
>
So, if the problem is with the ISP, it is Linux's fault. NOT.
> On the plus side, setting up connection sharing was a no-brainer.
>
> I'll keep it around despite some of the cosmetic flaws. It is worthy of my
> limited hardware resources.
I am moving towards having it as my main OS. Apple threw a wrench in the
works with incorporating BSD. Now I have to decide if I want to move to
BSD on the laptop and ditch Linux.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Text of Craig Mundie's Speech
Date: 04 May 2001 15:40:22 -0600
"Mikkel Elmholdt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9ctgi2$7fa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <snip>
>
> > That article made me sick! How greedy and rapacious can a company be.
>
> This kind of attitude never stops to amaze me. Why is it that some
> people (you included) obviously regard making (lots of) money as
> close to a cardinal sin? Microsoft is not doing anything that their
> competitors would not love to do, if they had been just as good at
> producing marketing bull.
If Microsoft actually *competed* on the *merits* of their products
instead of tripe like this, they wouldn't need you to come out and
defend them. Perhaps the GPL isn't the best thing for business, but
is it really all that prudent to align yourself with government
leaders with the implied meaning being: "We want the law to protect
us"
> But then every religion needs a Satan, and MS is obviously filling
> that role in the Church of the Holy Penguin ....
Whatever.
[snip about GPL is 'virus', which I agree with]
--
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: 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 17:43:50 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > T. Max Devlin wrote in message
> >
> > >>A fine server OS (well, bunch of OSes), but it simply
> > >>doesn't even begin to cut it on the desktop.
> >
> > Agreed. After spending about four days being amused by Mandrake 8, it
> > STILL doesn't even begin to cut it on the desktop. I would almost venture
> > to say that just about ALL of the included apps that I use crash regularly
> > on Linux.
>
> Perhaps open source still has a way to go as a development
> methodology. I don't think that's Unix's fault exactly. :)
>
Perhaps it does. People with problems can post messages directly to app
maintainers. if they are programmers, they can submit patches which may,
or may not, be added to the source. Bugs are found and fixed MUCH faster
in the Open/Free software world.
> > The newsreaders especially suck. Half the no-name browsers are
> > somehow or for some stupid reason configured by default to display web
> > text at about 2 pixels in height, this is especially a pain in the ass
> because
> > I have to go in and configure larger font display for every damn user.
>
> X windows makes this kind of thing problematic to deal with. You have
> to work in physical pixels. Font support is not so hot.
>
Or maybe, indiviual users need to set up their own accounts.
> It's possible to overcome these problems, but it's not easy. What
> you observe are the consequences of this.
>
> But the thing is that users don't *care* why things like
> this happen on Unix but not Windows. App vendors
> need to provide products that users want, and if
> that means moving to Windows...
>
> ... then Windows just plain wins.
>
And if that means moving to Linux, which is happening, Linux, and the
world wins.
> > File downloads regularly "stall" for minutes on end. Did I say regularly?
> > I meant ALWAYS! And I think it ruined my favorite monitor but have
> > no proof, but now the monitor flickers into half brightness all the time,
> > since the install.
>
> I somehow think blaming Unix for that one is a stretch, too. :D
>
> > It makes a descent platform for running Apache though.
>
> Sure. Unix was never meant to do what Windows does. It's
> unreasonable to expect it to be good at it.
>
What was Unix meant to do? What was Windows meant to do? What does
Windows do for me that LInux or Unix doesnt?
> It's just as unreasonable to expect Apache to perform
> well on Windows 95. Windows 95 has many of the
> necessary APIs as hand-me-downs from NT, but
> their implementation is often not so great.
>
> [snip]
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Sat, 5 May 2001 00:25:10 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:7_EI6.4722$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Big snip, thanks for the info.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 5 May 2001 00:26:23 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8_EI6.4723$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
> > >I think you'd be well advised to keep you, uh,
> > >"reason" under wraps. It does not enhance your
> > >credibility much.
> >
> > Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha! I'll bet you expect me to believe that, too. :-D
>
> Like Alice, I try to believe six impossible things before
> breakfast. :D
Wasn't it the Red Queen? And I believe it was eight.
Now, where *did* I put that copy?
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Sat, 5 May 2001 00:27:32 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:6_EI6.4721$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9cv13q$m7m$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:p7jI6.3490$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > 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
> >
> > Damn it, you just make this group *much* more attractive.
>
> Hmm? "Passive aggressive" trolling is *attractive*?
>
> Am I about to be swarmed with dames?
>
> I wouldn't have thought so, from Maxing posting...
>
> What is this "passive aggressive" thing, anyway?
I don't know about passive agressive (I always assume that this is letting
someone else attack you until they get tired, which is when you choop off
their head), but your posts are *funny*.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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: Sat, 5 May 2001 00:41:48 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9_EI6.4724$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snip]
> > >> "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.
> >
> > They bundled it immediately.
>
> They still offered an unbundled verison, just
> in case, until 1995.
You can still buy DOS 6.22 (only an upgrade, though)
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00002S7ZI/qid=989011973/sr=1-2/104-0
278249-8437568
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 23:54:38 +0200
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.
>
> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> Mikkel
>
>
Tell me Mikkel,
When it is Microsoft and its apologists that persist in bashing Linux
(hint: Halloween, Jim Allchin, Craig Mundie; do we see a pattern here?),
where in the seven Hells *are* we supposed to defend ourselves? Should we
troll comp.os.microsoft-nt.advocacy instead? From the persistent
appearance of Wintrolls in this forum, that would be our just revenge.
Since most of us keep the MS bashing to cola, I'd say it is a little rich
for you to take the high ground.
Now have a nice day, and don't come back until you got something relevant
to add to the discussion, instead of inviting even more anti-ms flames
with your inflammatory statements (hint: pot, kettle, black).
HAND
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
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 18:06:26 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
-snip-
>
> They *are* comparable products in the eyes of *developers*,
> though, and it's the developers who matter in this.
>
> They are platforms you build desktop applications on. And
> DR-DOS is a lousy one.
>
Was. Was. And why was DR-DOS so lousy to build applications on, compared
to the other OS's in it's market?
> > But we're not talking about the eyes of
> > the novice customer; we're talking about the monopolistic producer. If
> > DR-DOS was junk compared to Windows, why would MS bother with all the
> > hassles caused by the AARD code?
>
> A wee bug, fixed by release. Not much of a hassle.
>
As you have been told before, with names of the executives making the
quotes, the purpose of the AARD code was to discourage people from using
DR-DOS. The code that brought up the error messages was turned off in
the release version, but the message generation code was still there.
-snip-
>
> > As for "beginning to cut it", PCs have finally evolved to the point
> > where they can run a decent OS.
>
> You mean a server OS. They were running a reasonably good
> desktop OS in 1991, with Windows 3. Macintosh were
> doing so long before, too.
>
DOS/Windows 3.1 sucked... and suked worse than Windows does now.
> I'm serious. DOS/Windows 3 isn't a great tool, but for
> desktop apps it was better than Unix is now.
>
Defend your statement. How was 3.1 then, better than Unix now?
> > MS would rather we were all still tied
> > to monopoly crapware, though, so they spare no expense in restraining
> > trade.
>
> I'm not sure how that gets into it. MS is after all pushing
> for a single OS for both client and server- Windows 2000.
>
It will still be monopoly crapware.
> Seems like you'd approve of that, after what you just
> said.
>
> > >Sure, it's better than DOS. What isn't?
> >
> > Windows, depending on your concept of 'better'. DOS was simpler and
> > less confusing, which I believe is what "better" is supposed to mean to
> > the common user.
>
> I think you'll find that very few common users shared that
> view at the time.
>
What "time" are you talking about now?
> Developers found it simpler, because thye had to look at
> the insides of Windows, which are not simple at all.
>
> But what mattered for them is what the OS could do for
> them, not how simple it was.
>
> > >> Linux is not second rate.
> > >
> > >It's just like Unix.
> >
> > Thus, it is a powerful, professional-level OS, in comparison to Windows,
> > which is just monopoly crapware.
>
> It's a *server* OS; it does lots of fine things, but they aren't
> the right things for desktop apps.
>
Really? I have an integrated suite (Applixware) I can play music, watch
movies, surf the Net. Whats missing?
> > >> BeOS wouldnt have been second rate.
> > >
> > >I don't know what you mean by this. It
> > >was emphatically second rate; it might have
> > >become better given time, but in reality that
> > >didn't happen.
> >
> > "Didn't"? I wasn't aware the end of time had already passed; I must
> > have missed it completely.
>
> I think that for Be Inc, the end times have come. It looks
> like it's going to be sold, or so I hear.
>
> Okay, maybe the fat lady hasn't sung. But
> she's warming up.
>
> > >> 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.
> >
> > Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. Excel was able to "leverage Windows technology"
> > alright. And Microsoft was able to "leverage OS/2 technologies" to make
> > sure that Lotus was always behind.
>
> I don't see what you mean about OS/2 here. What OS/2 technologies
> did MS leverage?
>
> > I know this will amaze you and the
> > other trolls and sock puppets, but I'm not responsible for how lame your
> > understanding of the real world is.
>
> Evidently. :D
>
> > >By the time Lotus came over to Windows,
> > >they were playing catch up. And Microsoft
> > >fought them doggedly, as you'd expect.
> >
> > No, they didn't fight them at all. They just broke the law, again, as
> > you'd expect, by monopolizing. Once Lotus did get caught up (and
> > surpassed Excel rather easily, as no real improvements had been made
> > since Excel 2.0 for the Mac) MS started force-bundling Office.
>
> For several years there was quite the battle royale between
> Microsoft and the old DOS vendors- Lotus 1-2-3 vs Excel,
> Wordperfect vs Word. Both sides just kept troweling on
> the features.
>
And Microsft kept pushng those forced bundling licenses.
> Probably the most astonishing thing that happened during
> this period was Microsoft's decision to include OLE in the
> operating systems- rather than keeping it exclusively for
> Office.
>
> That was arrogant- it was a crucial feature, and rather
> than using it to beat Wordperfect and Lotus over the
> head, they used it to beat Apple and IBM (and their
> OpenDoc technology) instead.
>
> > >> WordPerfect was/is not second rate
> > >
> > >A similar story as with Lotus 1-2-3.
> >
> > No, an identical story; Microsoft acting anti-competitively, and you
> > apologizing for their criminal avoidance of technical merit.
>
> "Criminal avoidance of technical merit"?
>
> Errrr... do you think being incompetant is a crime?
>
> > [...I really wish this were still entertaining enough to be worth
> > continuing, but Daniel's feigned naivete lost its charm five years ago
> > when it was first put on the "approved sock puppet methods" list...]
>
> Before you go, where can I get a copy of that list? I need to
> expand by repetoir!
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Matt Kennel)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 22:06:59 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: mbkennel@<REMOVE THE BAD DOMAIN>yahoo.spam-B-gone.com
On Fri, 04 May 2001 19:30:59 GMT, Ray Fischer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:
:THAT is the point which you don't get. 60 years ago the Nazis
:considered being a Jew and being a homosexual to be a "defect".
:They proceeded to get rid of the defective.
What's ironic is that if they had really believed in their hard core
genetic determinism the homosexuals would naturally unpropagate
themselves out of the next generations provided you allowed much
greater cultural acceptance (and hence lack of cover marriages and
breeding) of the sort that was happening in the 1920's.
Of course it was all a pseudoscientific scam for picking on the people
that they decided they didn't like. bonk bonk on the head.
--
* Matthew B. Kennel/Institute for Nonlinear Science, UCSD
*
* "To chill, or to pop a cap in my dome, whoomp! there it is."
* Hamlet, Fresh Prince of Denmark.
------------------------------
From: "billh" <[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.
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 22:07:38 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis"
> That's Bill's primary purpose in life.
Then I'd suggest that you quit drinking kerosene, wannabe.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
