Linux-Advocacy Digest #212, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 12:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:13:55 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 21:53:51
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:55:54
>> [...]
>> >There is no "correct" way to implement an API, there are MANY different
>> >ways to do it.
>>
>> Let's just say that some of those ways MAY work, and some of them WILL
>> work.
>
>No, if it implement the API, it will work.
>That is the *defination* of implementation.
That's my point: if you change the definition this way, you're just
playing metaphysical games, identifying whichever thing you want as 'the
API' at the time, without any need for accuracy or consistency. It just
isn't practical, I'm afraid. Either the library IS the API, or your
statement is invalid, because I cannot and will not accept the idea that
"implementation" includes the necessity for perfection.
>There are countless ways to implement almost any API you can think of. Some
>of them are better than others in memory footprint, speed, etc, but *all* of
>them will work.
Only if you exclude all concept of optimization from your concept of
"work". As far as I am concerned, it doesn't "work" in implementing the
API unless it provides some optimal value. I realize that programmers
have a more theoretical idea in mind when they say "work". The problem
is that you don't, and think that "theoretically works" is just as good
as "works in practice".
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:13:57 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>> >> 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.
>
>No, that time I was serious. I really can't
>play the piano worth a damn.
You forgot the smiley again, moron.
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:13:58 GMT
Said Seán Ó Donnchadha in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001
13:31:19 -0400;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >It doesn't get me punched. Confused looks, sure, but
>> >that's something else. :D
>>
>> The phrase "gibbering idiot" comes to mind.
>>
>
>Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. It's comments like that from people like you
>that make it all worthwhile. I hate to suggest that if trolls call you
>a gibbering idiot, the spanking they're taking must be getting to them. I
>could be
>wrong, of course, but as a rule of thumb it seems to work.
>
>Chew on that for a while, psycho.
>
Check the post I provided the response you just plagiarized against the
current thread. Yours was paragraph after paragraph of outrageous
quibbling and squirming and attempts to denounce my reasoning and trying
very firmly and unsuccessfully to personally insult me. In comparison,
Guffaw!
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:13:59 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
[...]
>That would appear to make you, Rick, and Aaron Kulkis the
>"reasonable men" of whom there are lots. Right?
You still seem to be under the impression you can annoy me with personal
insults. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
(No offense, Rick; I'm sure you understand. Daniel's quite the troll,
isn't he?)
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:14:00 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 22:35:51
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001
>> >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> >> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > Well, no. Windows 1 and 2 were bundled with Excel and
>> >> > (I think) Word for the PC, but Windows 3 was sold
>> >> > retail, then sold to OEMs.
>> >> >
>> >> > Then it was combined (or bundled, if you like) with
>> >> > DOS, renamed "Windows 95", and becomes more
>> >> > comparable to OS/2 than GEM.
>> >> >
>> >> > MS didn't go for the integration thing until Windows 3
>> >> > was firmly on top. They minized the risk that way.
>> >>
>> >> If it could survive on its onw, yhen why did the MANDATE bundling?
>> >
>> >Microsoft was thinking of the future. They don't need
>> >the limitations of being stuck with a DOS codebase;
>>
>> Yea, we know; its there *customers* who demand backwards compatibility.
>
>Of course, dimwit.
Sarcasm, dimwit.
>Couple of months ago we discussed application barrier, remember?
>If Windows didn't have backward compatability with DOS, users of DOS
>applications wouldn't move to it, period.
And application barriers are erected by whom, Ayende? Customers?
>So Windows had backward compatability, because the *users* wanted it.
Otherwise, how could they maintain the application barrier that was so
important to them, right?
>If MS could've its way, it was NT all the way.
"Have its way" meaning continue the monopoly without being weighed down
by the albatross of DOS. Unfortunately, DOS was where the monopoly was,
so....
>But NT couldn't handle a lot of the stuff that was written to DOS, so the 9x
>beast was born, had a short time of glory, and now is dying.
No, 9X was "born" before NT, because 9x is just Win3.x repackaged and
somewhat revised. NT broke backward compatibility, somewhat, but it
also therefore weakened the application barrier somewhat, so MS is now
working on XP. This, they swear, will finally provide backward
compatibility without requiring backward compatibility: application
barrier without any benefit for the consumer. MS seems confused by
their inability to generate a lot of interest among consumers. Go
figure.
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:14:01 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>"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.
No, there were no "bundled version" or "unbundled versions". They
forced the bundle on every OEM they could. Their internal
communications confirm that this was a very strict strategy, that no DOS
at all will be sold through OEMs without Windows.
>> >Clearly they were taking no chances.
>>
>> We've been through this before. There's nothing "chancy" about
>> anti-competitive strategies unless you don't have monopoly power.
>
>Microsoft does not have the strange supernatural
>powers you attribute to them.
There's nothing supernatural about monopoly power, Danieltroll.
>They did face risks. They do even now. They
>would *need* magic to avoid this.
So you claim. Guffaw.
>> >> The first two versions weren't just crap: they
>> >> weren't DOS extensions.
>> >
>> >How do you figure?
>>
>> What can I say? They just weren't.
>
>Why not?
Because they did not extend DOS, maybe?
>[snip]
>> >But they do keep trying. Persistance, that's what
>> >you've gotta love about Microsoft. :D
>>
>> Repeating criminal behavior is somehow to be admired in your brain-dead
>> world? You are laughable.
>
>No, no, persistance!
No, no, laughable! Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
>> >By the way, what sort of smilie do you prefer? :) ? :> ? ^v^ ?
>>
>> None, thanks. It shows your passive-aggressive insecurity, and makes
>> you look even more pathetic.
>
>So I'm a passive-agressive troll with a passive agressive
>insecurity, then?
You're just a troll.
>Well, at least me and my insecurity *match*! That's
>gotta be worth something!
A very average troll.
>[snip]
>> >> No, they'd sell DOS, and try desperately to get someone to buy Windows.
>> >
>> >I don't think they were really desparate, do you?
>>
>> I don't think you're interested in an intelligent conversation. Or
>> perhaps you are just incapable of one.
>
>Of course not! I'm talking to you, aren't I? :D
No, you're just posting trolls to usenet, buddy. LOL!
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:14:02 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
[...]
>Like Alice, I try to believe six impossible things before
>breakfast. :D
Sorry, Daniel, I've lost interest in spanking you for the moment. Troll
again in a few weeks, if you need the attention so desperately.
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:14:03 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 00:27:32
>"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> 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*.
And you know this is the case, because of all the smileys, right?
"Passive aggressive" is just not having the balls to insult someone
honestly when they deserve it, and believing that you never deserve to
be insulted no matter how dishonest you are. As with Daniel, people who
are passive aggressive are generally inordinately proud of their
dishonesty.
--
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
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:14:04 GMT
Said Stephen Edwards in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> There is simply no such thing as a "proprietry standard". As long as MS
>> keeps its API to itself, it is not a standard. You can well argue that
>the
>> MS API is very commonly used, and may be more useful than POSIX, but it is
>> still not a standard.
>
>So, when AT&T UNIX(R) got a foothold, I guess that since
>it was proprietary, that it wasn't a standard then, right?
Which, Unix, or AT&T UNIX(R)? Guffaw.
>Whether or not something is a standard is not dictated by
>it's ownership status. It is dictated by the margin of
>its use.
No, that determins how common it is, not whether it is standard. There
is some overlap in the concepts, of course, and from this the term 'de
facto standard' is derived. A proprietary product can be a 'de facto
standard' if it is commonly implemented throughout the market by a
number of vendors. Unless, of course, it is just a monopoly. A
monopoly is not a 'de facto standard', simply by definition, because of
the reasons for adoption of the product. A de facto standard you
implement because there's little reason not to, monopoly crapware you
implement because there's little ability not to.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:14:05 GMT
Said Paolo Ciambotti in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
19:51:22 -0700;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Donal K. Fellows"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Pretty easy to do, you know. Just run a few million iterations of the
>> code being performance-tested and the per-run cost of a grotty timestamp
>> should effectively vanish.
>
>But you must have some idea in advance just how many iterations of a test
>it will take to negate a "grotty timestamp". Arbitrarily deciding that a
>few million runs is adequate is a flawed assumption if the measurement
>overhead differs significantly between the test subject environments.
But the 'test subject environments' are already identical but for the
test subjects (the OSes), right?
>The measurement overhead must be accounted for in any benchmark in order
>for the benchmark to have any value, even if it is only on the order of a
>few microseconds. Companies will fight and die for those microseconds....
Maybe the problem is they should call this a 'benchmark', which is an
arbitrary metric, not a comparison between two systems. Your comments
are correct for a benchmark, but are superfluous for a comparison
between two systems.
--
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
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:14:06 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 23:29:30
>"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.
Am I correct in presuming that this 'verification' is in the form of
assurances from Microsoft? <*hmpgh*>
--
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
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:14:07 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001 02:18:42
>"David Brown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9ctn5h$vgk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Jon Johansan wrote in message <3af18b76$0$37328$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >
>> >"Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:zySH6.6169$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> Just from the commercial side of things, I don't see XP taking off for
>> >quite
>> >> a while. So many of these shops have just now upgraded to W2K. I think MS
>> >> would have been better served to have given W2K a miss and just waited
>> >until
>> >> XP was done. The whole thing is more than a little strange when you
>> >consider
>> >> their past marketing efforts. It just doesn't make sense.
>> >
>> >Imagine this:
>> >XP is the achievement of a single code base. One set of drivers, you do not
>> >need to maintaine different drivers for W9x and ME and W2K. There is only
>> >one set of updates. Only one GUI to learn. One way to do things. It's the
>> >termination of a KNOWN ugly line of code. It's the end of ANYTHING remotely
>> >to do with DOS (other than emulation for backwards compatibility).
>> >
>>
>> It is amazing how you can view "doing it right for once" as such a big deal.
>> Dropping DOS and moving to a single code base is without doubt a big step
>> forward for MS, but you make it sound like they have just invented sliced
>> bread
>
>
>It's not so much of a technical achievement (MS had NT back in 1993 which
>included some features that Linux has still yet to match) as a customer
>support and marketing one.
>
>No other company has as much market share as MS and taking a product
>which was MS' bread and butter and migrating all their users to a much more
>superior product is a big deal.
>
>You guys claim Linux is superior to Windows, yet no one has managed to move
>even 1% of the users over to Linux yet, so I really wouldn't be talking
>about this if I were you.
Actually, its just the furtherance of the illegal monopoly. Microsoft
would sorely love to be free of the albatross of DOS entirely, but
continued "marketing efforts" (monopolization) have failed to allow the
migration of the monopoly without severe weakening of the application
barrier. This explains why it takes the dishonest and criminal efforts
of Microsoft a full decade for XP to do what MS claimed NT did in the
early 90s.
It also explains why you have to be so blatantly and pathetically
dishonest in order to continue trying to pull off your trolling, Chad.
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:14:09 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
[...the category errors Daniel pretends to commit in this post have
been deleted them in my reply...]
Are you vapid, Daniel, or just dishonest?
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:14:08 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > 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.
>
>Okay, okay, so you *are* claiming that.
>
>But no credible source says that.
No credible sources deny that.
[...]
>Microsoft was not convicted of anything that time.
>
>They just cut a deal.
...to avoid being convicted at that time.
>[snip]
>> > 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?
>
>To avoid a lengly lawsuit. It's not like they needed
>those licenses, anyway.
Really? They sure tried hard enough to force people to pay for them....
>I know, it didn't work. But they no doubt
>thought it would work.
You're the only one I've ever heard of being vapid enough to think it
didn't work, Daniel. Not the only one dishonest enough to claim it
didn't work, though. So are you vapid, or simply dishonest?
>[snip]
>> > 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.
>
>Okay, putting in features that the Department of
>Justice had not approved.
Are you vapid, or merely dishonest?
>But really, you can't expect MS not to compete
>just because the DoJ doesn't like competition.
Are you vapid, or merely dishonest?
--
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
Subject: Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse
me - d'oh!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:28:00 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 23:25:54
>"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.
Then you should have simply said "Ada was never 'the next big thing'",
if you wanted to disagree with Tom's phrasing, rather than pretending to
not understand it.
[...]
>> So what do you know about Ada?
[..not much... snipped...]
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:28:01 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>"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 hope that even you can admit that any
>> >law that consigns us all to DOS forevermore
>> >is a bad law. :D
>>
>> That's pathetically moronic, Daniel. I can't believe you put your name
>> to such silly comments. Do you think we'll believe you're being
>> light-hearted, and somehow forget you're trying to excuse criminal
>> behavior?
>
>You seem quite fixated on your opinion that Microsoft
>has transgressed the letter of the law in producing a better
>product for sale.
I am sure of the fact that Microsoft has been convicted on three counts
of violations of the Sherman Act.
>It's odd. Does it not occur to you that perhaps the law
>might not so good?
Yes, it certainly does. I would never advocate applying a law which I
had not considered ethically, nor would I support a conviction in which
the violation had not been considered ethically. Microsoft did not
"compete hard", no matter how many times you try to slip it in as an
assumption, Daniel. My replies to you are not evidence your trolling is
finding success, but just entertaining chances for me to prove how lame
you are. I will grow bored soon, you can be sure, but I will always be
around to spank you should you continue to behave as dishonestly as you
have.
Yes, it has occurred to me that the law might not be so good, and I
considered the matter quite definitely, and found this not to be the
case.
You seem quite fixated on pretending Microsoft's anti-competitive
activities are both legal and acceptable, even typical, as if no other
company is interested in or capable of producing a better product for
sale.
It's odd. Has it actually never occurred to you that perhaps breaking
the law might not be so good?
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:28:02 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>On 04 May 2001 00:57:53 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
>wrote:
>
>>For fear of discovery no doubt.
>
>Hmmm 15 msessages and not one segment of useful material.
BULLSHIT! You have posted WAY more than 15 messages, flathead. Across
your dozen or so aliases, it must be more than fifteen THOUSAND segments
of nothing but useless trolling. How pathetic.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:28:03 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
[...]
>I won't argue that point!!!
>
>Flatfish
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA! As if you've ever 'argued a point'. LOL.
You go troll, now, little flatfishie. Go insult some more people who
know more than a tired old man who never really was very good with
computers.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 05 May 2001 15:28:04 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>So did I get your shared library question somewhat correct?
>
>And as for my real name, you are correct. IMHO only an idiot would
>use her real name in a advocacy group.
That's because you're a troll, *sir*. In the real world, there's no
reason not to, and many reasons to do so. *Children* use fake "fighter
pilot" names online. But children don't expect anyone to take their
opinion seriously, while trolls only pretend to have an opinion to be
annoying.
--
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
******************************
