Linux-Advocacy Digest #262, Volume #34 Sun, 6 May 01 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Jonas Due Vesterheden")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Jonas Due Vesterheden")
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (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: "Jonas Due Vesterheden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 22:18:21 +0200
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i en meddelelse
news:9d1uvi$qfl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Thank Jesus! It's a real HTML breaker, and has led to
> > circus plug-ins like Macromedia Flash and Shockwave, as
> > well as the ability to hijack a workstation through HTML
> > or VBScript.
> Nothing render pages better than it.
> NS has plugins as well. And you didn't even needed VBScript to hijack a
> workstation, all you needed is a JPEG.
How do you hijack a workstation with a JPEG image?
Regards Jonas
------------------------------
From: "Jonas Due Vesterheden" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 22:19:53 +0200
"donc" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> skrev i en meddelelse
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Oh sure. And everybody knows that NCSA Mosaic was inspired by IE. Why,
> if it weren't for Microsoft's innovation there wouldn't even an
> internet today. But perhaps their biggest contributions have been in
> the areas of reliability and openess.
Are you saying that Microsoft created the internet or am I misunderstanding?
If not, can you please explain?
Regards Jonas
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:27 GMT
Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 6 May 2001 13:31:38
>"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>> If I lived a few miles further north, I could get a cable modem and
>> have a choice of phone company. But in general, I've found that the
>> monopoly telcos in the US are about as responsive as BT is reputed to
>> be.
>
>That always seems to be the case with decent access. I cuts off just outside
>the area of the people who really want it...
Popular wisdom claims that the government made a deal with AT&T, way
back when, to overcome this problem with basic phone service. Truth is,
the VAST MAJORITY of people don't have any available high bandwidth
services at consumer level pricing.
>> This is where the dichotomy between what HTML was meant to be and what
>> it is being used for comes in. The original idea was that the user was
>> in control of presentation.
>>
>> I know you're talking about CSS, but CSS was an add-on to the original
>> idea. Certainly fonts are one of those things where if you use them you
>> need to know what the user has. But the HTTP protocol doesn't provide a
>> way to get that information because in the original design the page was
>> supposed to take what it was given, so to speak.
>
>That's why I think there should be a complete overhaul of HTML and all it's
>components and add-ons.
>
>Perhaps such web sites should be written in a different language or subset
>of XML, and purely functional pages written in HTML, be we need a new
>language because of the many available which would do the job (pdf, doc,
>flash etc) none are human readable or as compact as HTML. PDF files are a
>ridiculous size for what they are because they record information in TOO
>much detail and aren't flexible enough with screen size etc...
I think they should give some thought to 'bifurcating' the protocol;
come up with a revised (and stripped down) HTML for the "real" web, and
then design some other special-purpose protocol for presenting remote
"site-based consoles" so you can do all the other happy horseshit.
>> By trying to make the web about presentation, you are fighting against
>> fundamental assumptions of the system design. Even with CSS. And the
>> thing is, I don't believe that the users really care that much. Some
>> do, certainly, but two factors provide evidence that most do not:
>>
>> 1. The big growth of the web happened prior to CSS and sophisticated
>> layout becoming widespread.
>>
>> 2. Things like Flash and PDF are not particularly popular with users.
>
>That depends. Some people do want to see a good looking web, other don't.
I think his point is compelling; only producers would ever rate
appearance on the same priority scale as information content. Nobody
doesn't want a good looking web; nobody confuses this with wanting a web
but those who make more money, the more complicated it gets, regardless
of how useful it is.
>The main reason flash is unpopular at the moment is because the files are
>too large and the interpreter too slow. I hate it as well, but eventually,
>when everybody has a broadband connection and at minimum a 1GHz processor
>(I'm typing on a PR200), then it will become less hated and even appreciated
>if used in the correct contexts and it is well designed.
Flash is unpopular because it is unnecessary and counter-productive, I'd
say. Vendors want it because it makes a web page look like a TV
commercial; it might amuse some people enough that they might want sites
to use flash, but this is a measure of their naivete, I think.
>Perhaps the inherent simplicity of HTML is one of it's major downfalls. With
>it begin so easy to learn there are far too many poor or simply stupid
>designers out there who can still inflict themselves on the world, and even
>charge people to inflict their bad design on other people's sites... ;)
Making a protocol moron-proof makes it useless, I think. The many
competent and even innovative designers out there do not make the web
any more informative, and that is the purpose people want to use it for.
>> Sure, users will notice if your site is unusually cool in some
>> respect. But I don't think that influences their decision whether to
>> come back very much.
>
>It depends what type of site you are writing really...
I don't think it should. Uniformity is more useful and efficient then
diversity of presentation, given the constraints involved.
>> NS4 is pretty old too. Mozilla branched off, what, three years ago?
>
>That's what annoys me in many ways. After producing something crap, netscape
>just sat back for two and a half years and let their previous reputation
>spread their piece of shit browser all round the web.
You're anthropomorphizing, I think. After getting NS4.0x, I just
refused to upgrade. No positive or negative reputation of a company has
anything to do with it.
>> There has not been much development of NS4 since. Mozilla does do most
>> of what you are asking for (Bellsouth's web site even likes it), but
>> since IE is bundled with Windows and AOL, not many Windows users are
>> going to bother with the download.
>
>Mozilla is great, but it is huge and slow. There really is no need for the
>kind of power gobbling stuff that is in both NS6 and Mozilla. Opera is the
>only reasonable one for working within a system spec and that costs money,
>something a browser can't really afford to do in a market where EVERY
>alternative is free...
"Huge and slow" doesn't really sound so "great". ;-)
>> All of the newer browsers for non-Windows platforms (Mozilla
>> derivatives, Opera, and Konqueror at least) have much better support
>> for the features you desire. As people upgrade their systems NS4 will
>> fade. I hardly use it any more except for sites that require plugins,
>> which are still problematic on other browsers. In another year you
>> won't have to worry about NS4 any longer.
>
>What is this Konqueror? I would like to take a look as I still haven't found
>an up to date browser I can run on my P200!
Its the web browser built into the KDE desktop for Linux. Still
relatively early in the post-release development, from what I have
heard. I'm not a big fan of KDE; it all seems to much like just porting
Windows to Linux. Some day I imagine it will be very useful, but when
I'm on Linux I prefer GNOME, though that suffers from many of the same
issues.
>> Perhaps, but if your site has useful content then people will come back
>> even if it is not flashy. OTOH, if the content is not useful then they
>> won't. The web is not like a rack of magazines at the grocery store,
>> each shouting "pick me up" to the customers walking by. It is viewed
>> that way by lots of people, but I think if you study real users you
>> will find that they don't use the web that way. They use it more like
>> a library or a catalog and go looking for specific things.
>
>But if we are talking about e-commerce sites here, they have to look and
>function better than their competition too. Just like in the real world,
>they have an image to project of themselves in order to impress clients.
No, I would agree again with Bob; I think his point about amazon.com is
very cogent. E-commerce sights have to be more convenient and reliable
then the competition, and that is pretty much all there is to it. If
you want to make that synonymous with "look and function better", then I
can't second-guess you, but it isn't intended to mean the same thing at
all.
>> Sure. I am far more interested in the content than in the presentation
>> of that content though. I think a lot of the commercial companies who
>> have jumped into the web have fundamentally missed the point that it is
>> all about the content and only peripherally about the presentation.
>
>Perhaps is was, but things have moved on... I enjoy both parts of the web.
I do too; I just wish they didn't compromise both of them so badly by
refusing to make a distinction.
>I
>like the purely functional side when all I want is a piece of information,
>but people use the net for other reasons nowadays as well and I would feel
>less comfortable buying from a company with a very simple basic site in just
>the same way as I would feel uncomfortable having to walk through an alley
>and upstairs to reach a little shop on the top floor of an old converted
>house...
You've gone way to far out on the limb, here. People want information
from the web, and are well aware that this is what the web is for, and
also all it can do. Other than some limited forms-based stuff for
e-ommerce, anything that isn't simple and basic is just inefficient,
unreliable, and inconvenient for those reasons. People surf the web to
explore it at first, sure, but after that, like Bob said; it's 'get me
where I'm going (the information I want to find, and not much else)',
not 'allow me to wander around navigating blindly looking for something
entertaining', the way web developers seem to think.
>> Even e-commerce sites are not about flash or presentation. If I go to
>> Amazon, I am already sold on buying something, usually something in
>> particular. All they have to do is to not put me off in some way, they
>> can't make me more likely to buy than I already am. I'm more likely to
>> be put off by an overly elaborate site that doesn't work right or is
>> slow than by one that has the "wrong" fonts.
>
>Perhaps you are sold on something. But many people aren't as decisive. They
>visit to browse the bargains, just as you might do in the high street.
Then they want a database front-end that extracts the records listing
the items they want, linked to detail fields in a very basic
arrangement. They aren't "browsing", no; they're looking for
information and your web site is just getting in the way!
>Window shopping requires attractive windows and pretty wares for sale.
This is a leverage argument; as if the vendors cannot afford to sell
items on-line unless they can force you to examine other products first.
It's a false claim, and a minor form of profiteering, I think; a matter
of engrossing. We want cheap prices and quality products in the most
convenient fashion possible, not pretty wares and anachronistic concepts
like "window shopping". We've got malls if we want to go "window
shopping". On-line commerce is supposed to be more efficient (cheaper)
than brick-and-morter, not just another excuse to ratchet up the
corporate profits.
>Amazon might see you as sold on something, but they also want you to pick up
>something else, perhaps to make the P&P worth paying or one of those other
>excuses we use on ourselves... That's why there are lists of related goods,
>pictures everywhere of things that might interest you. They need to make a
>sale the same as physical shops and supermarkets and marketing applies in
>the same way.
Yes; that is why we are complaining. Please stop making excuses for
crass commercialization which robs me of my patience. If they need to
make a sale, they can provide me information in the most convenient
manner (FOR ME) possible, and it would help if they have a low price and
a quality product, not by forcing me to walk to the "back of the store"
on a fucking web page.
>> It is not fundamentally important that the site look to the user
>> exactly as envisioned by the designer. It is important only that it be
>> functional and not off-putting. HTML was intended to provide that, not
>> precise layout. The add-ons help with layout but do not change the
>> fundamental paradigm.
>
>But many people want to provide precise layout and that is why HTML has
>become so messed up...
Many people want HTML to do something other than what people who want
HTML want it to do, and that is why they get messed up wanting precise
layout.
>> I was doing some field testing of a new product. Found one bug I have
>> to fix, and one unfunded new requirement. I guess that's productive...
>>
>> I also redid my home page to get rid of the "one big table" 8->. Will
>> get that posted soon.
>
>He he. Good on you.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:28 GMT
Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 6 May 2001 16:44:24
[...]
>I was thinking new generation browser which implements HTML, but emphasises
>the advances of the new set. And perhaps plug-ins for other browsers.
>Pressure could be put on the browser companies to include the plug-in as
>standard in their installations.
I really don't like the sound of that...
>Possibly the hardest people to get through to would be the developers
>because unless the gains offered to them were enormous then the lazy sods
>wouldn't budge from HTML. It would have to be faster, easier to write (as in
>more tailored towards the effects they want) and also widely implemented
>enough to make it worth their while.
>
>That kind of shit is a long way off. At the moment HTML is just messed up.
>We have to wait until it is completely inadequate before anything will
>happen, and even then we are talking another VHS / Betamax where the
>technologically poorer side will undoubtably win... ;)
You misunderstand and misrepresent the reality of the VHS/Betamax issue.
--
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
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:29 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 6 May 2001 13:33:48
>"green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9d38m6$r3r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> Probably wouldn't be hard to put a coffee maker on, but that may violate
>> some gpl on the howto for getting linux to make coffee.
>
>That is one thing that frighten me about the GPL.
>There is already GPLed data, what happen when other things start to get GPL?
Then the world becomes a better place.
--
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,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:30 GMT
Said Steve Sheldon in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 6 May 2001 12:36:23
>"Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> This is that crux of what you should attempt to deny:
>>
>> 1. Microsoft's code has not had extensive community peer review because an
>> aspect of their development policy is keeping their source code secret (i.e.
>> security through obscurity).
>
>Your far better off assigning a select small group of peers doing a review
>as is done at Microsoft than just throwing your code up on ftp and hoping
>someone looks at it.
No, you are better of putting your code on a public ftp server for a
large group of peers to review, then only pretending and having a few
engineers acting as if they are peers-without-peer, like Microsoft does.
Wake up and smell the coffee: Microsoft's pathetic security failures
prove the case in comparison to Linux's open source peer review process.
>I would have thought by now we'd all just accepted the peer review myth of
>linux is just that... a myth.
Why did you think that? And why do you think it is a myth?
>> 2. By sharing the code with an increasing number of "select" customers
>there
>> in an increased risk that the code will get into undesirable hands (also
>> increasing the probability that more vulnerabilities will be
>found/exploited
>> in the future).
>
>Who is undesirable?
People who would exploit security flaws which are not yet known to the
general technical community. "Hackers", in the pejorative sense.
>> 3. If the code does get into undesirable hands, customers (or their
>> agents/contractors/etc.) will not have the power to fix those
>> vulnerabilities themselves.
>
>Now wait a minute. You can't believe the myth of peer review and then claim
>that it doesn't work in your second and third points.
No, it simply doesn't exist in the second and third points. You don't
seem to understand what "peer review" actually means.
>Make up your mind.
Think harder.
--
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,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:31 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 6 May 2001
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 5 May 2001 13:52:28 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
>> >CORBA came after COM. COM originated at MS in 1987, but wasn't actually
>put
>>
>> Please cite a source for this 1987 date. OMG started approx. 1989.
>You're
>> COM origination date is fictitious.
>
>You're correct, it was 1988, not 87.
>
>From the forward of Essential COM Charlie Kindel (one of the early COM
>supporters) writes:
>
>COM began in 1988 as a result of the works of Bob Atkinson, Tony Williams,
>and Craig Whittenburg.
>
>Work began on the first implementation of COM in OLE 2.0 in 1990, as part of
>Bill Gates "Information at your Fingertips" campaign.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha. And OLE was a rip-off of the Macintosh's desktop
integration stuff. COM is obviously a smoke-screen for combining that
with CORBA-like functionality, as part of Bill Gates' "everybody will
have to pay me money" campaign.
Some engineering is innovative; Microsoft's clearly isn't. Whether
Microsoft's product development even counts as engineering is what is
really questionable.
--
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,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:32 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 6 May 2001
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 5 May 2001 19:54:17 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >"JVercherIII" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:ADVI6.297$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Civility people! I use both Linux and Windows, and both have their
>places
>> >> (IMHO). I make a living right now writing VB programs so I'm kind of
>> >living
>> >> off the Microsoft gravy train. That being said, they do some things
>which
>> >> are very unpleasing. My main complaint with Microsoft is that they
>stifle
>> >> innovation. They never have come up with an original idea.
>> >
>> >Bullshit, and a big one.
>>
>> Man, you'd better brush up on your history.
>>
>> >To name a few of the top of my head:
>> >COM
>> >COM+
>>
>> These are not original ideas, they came out of OMG and CORBA
>
>COM existed before the OMG did. COM was first developed in 1988 by Bob
>Atkinson, Tony Williams,
>and Craig Whittenburg. The OMG was not even founded until 1989, and didn't
>issue its first spec until 1991.
For certain definitions of the term "existed" maybe. COM didn't exist
until it was implemented (1990, with LOTS of flaws), if you're going to
compare it to the OMG implementations of CORBA; the engineering leading
up to these developments were also years in the making. I recall I
first heard of CORBA in the late 1990, in fact, though I may be
misremembering, as I haven't any way to fix the date I was reading the
article. It seemed to be more well developed even at that time than
Microsoft's COM. Then again, whether Microsoft's COM was developed, or
whether it just grew on the monopoly like moss grows on a rock, is
somewhat debatable.
--
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,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:33 GMT
Said Charles Lyttle in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 06 May 2001
[...]
>IE still looks like a hacked up mosaic.
IE *is* still a hacked up mosaic.
--
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:34 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> [...]
>> >> You expect me to be surprised that Word for Windows 1.0 used Windows 2
>> >> controls in early builds?
>> >
>> >I'd be surprised at *that*; Windows uses dynamic linking;
>> >I'd expect Word to get the current standard controls
>> >regardless of what it was built with. Like Excel did.
>>
>> As has been said before (advice you should try to remember, Daniel):
>> When you're digging a hole, the trick is to know when to stop digging.
>>
>> YOU might be surprised at such a glitch, but it is obvious that you were
>> not cognizant of the matter at the time. It would certainly not
>> surprise anyone who is familiar with the matter.
>
>You're bluffing, Max. I know exactly how Windows 3
>did this stuff.
No, Daniel, I am not bluffing. I know exactly what kind of stuff
Microsoft does.
>An application links to User.dll; this DLLs initialization
>code used RegisterClass to register the control's
>classes. After that, an application can create a
>control using CreateWindow(), and passing the name
>or atom for the desired control. It gets whatever
>control is registererd by User.dll.
>
>A Windows 2 app that uses Windows 3's User.dll
>will get Windows 3's controls- including three-d
>scrollbars and buttons.
>
>Word is doing something funny.
Word is rather notorious for doing that, in case you haven't noticed.
Your observation that the scroll bars were "messed up" in a pre-release
version is very obvious evidence for the fact that this is not a recent
development, and has been with the product since its original release
*with Windows 3.0*.
>> >But apparently Word rolled its own controls for
>> >some reason. Perhaps in order to 'fake' MDI on a
>> >Windows 2 platform. But if they were targetting
>> >Windows 3, why not just use the built in
>> >implementation?
>>
>> They didn't "target" Win3; they ONLY SUPPORTED Win3. I'll tell you one
>> more time, just in case you missed it the first half a dozen times:
>> there was no Word for Windows before Windows 3.
>
>Yes, you say that, but I think the available evidence says
>otherwise.
I can't honestly believe you're that stupid, and I know you'll admit to
being a troll, so I think you're just lying. Not even you think this
'evidence' says any 'otherwise'.
[...]
--
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:36 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> 20:53:03 GMT;
>> >I don't see that DR-DOS was superior as a platform
>> >for Windows.
>>
>> Nice squirming, troll-boy.
>
[...]
--
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:35 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> 18:43:12 GMT;
>> >I think you need to study up a bit. Command.com is
>> >a shell and it lets you start other software- including
>> >Windows.
>>
>> I think you need to read more carefully.
>
>Oh? Why is that
*ZZZZZZZZZ*
--
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
******************************
