Linux-Advocacy Digest #267, Volume #34 Sun, 6 May 01 18:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux (kosh)
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: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux disgusts me ("Mike")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: A Windows enthusiasts take on Mundie's speech ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Why 90% of CEO's are morons ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 15:41:42 -0600
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Richard Thrippleton wrote:
> First, let's get one thing straight; I'm not a wintroll. I don't
> even run windows on any machine I own. I am a committed a Linux advocate
> (and evangelist). But I am gonna rant (and there is foam coming out of my
> mouth). What pisses me off about quite a significant amount of Linux
> software is the ridiculous x86 bias, ridiculous to the point of ignorance
> of the existance of other CPUs.
> On many occasions, I have wasted much bandwidth and time
> obtaining sourcecode to some killer app, only to find that it will only
> compile on x86, and there is f***all warning in previous documentation.
> There seems to be some kind of arrogant view that Linux is only run on
> x86 (I use PPC). Some lamer has put in an ASM hack; that's fine, but would
> it really be too much trouble to put in a C substitute, or at least some
>>warning< next to that big hunk of megabytes large source code?? I
> have to use a modem half the year and this isn't helping!
> All I want is fair warning that they haven't taken into account CPUs
> other than their own. So those of you who know (or are) developers,
> _please_ bang some heads and let people know that there are people who do
> not use x86s. Oh, and let them know that some people have their ints
> ordered the _right_ way round :>
>
> Richard
>
The answer is probably simpler then what you think. Some of the programs I
have written may not run on windows or on other cpu platforms. However I
don't know if that is true because I don't have those other platforms to
test it with.
How is someone to know if the code won't work on a ppc, mips, sparce, etc
without having one to test it on?
------------------------------
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: Mon, 7 May 2001 00:20:27 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Graham Murray in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 06 May 2001 17:54:56
> >In gnu.misc.discuss, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001
21:56:59
> >> >An API is not complete without the documentation of what its function
does.
> >>
> >> You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function call
> >> unless the function is documented?
> >
> >No. Such a function, while part of the library, is not part of the
> >API. As has been stated before, the API is like the contract between
> >the consumer (application) and provider (library.) Undocumented
> >functions are outside the API, and there is no guarantee that all
> >implementations of the API will contain that function, nor that if it
> >is provided that its parameters, return value or action will be the
> >same.
>
> If an API is "like a contract", then it is simply the documentation of
> the agreement. Not "the agreement" itself. Only people engage in
> contracts; objects do not. A contract is in some respects the paper
> defining the agreement (the documentation of the API or the
> specification for the API, either) but it is also in some respects a
> mental construct, without any value in the physical world (the promise,
> and the government enforcement, which are only potential with no
> physical power until you go to court).
A contract has physical, legal, and monetary existance.
So does an API.
API spesification contain its documentation. An undocumented API is not part
of the contract.
You can equal it to a verbal contract, versus a signed contract.
A verbal contract has little existance, it can be upheld, or not. A real
contract is one that has existance.
> So, like the cook reading the
> recipe, the idea of the API as "a contract" might work just fine for a
> rough technical translation of what an API is to the non-technical, but
> I don't think you should take the analogy as seriously as you seem to
> do.
No, it's exactly like a contract, which is why I used this analogy.
A contract spesified the duties and obligations of each party, and what they
get in exchange of those obligations. An API does the same.
> Or at least recognize that "contracts" are mental constructs, as much as
> specifications written on paper. An API is a platonic object that
> represents nothing more than the library (or any other library which
> supports the API).
No, an API is not a platonic object, it is real, it has existance, it has
affect.
A book represent nothing more than an idea, is it a platonic object too?
A house blue prints?
------------------------------
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: Mon, 7 May 2001 00:42:56 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:45:43
> >On Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:16 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >>Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:36:46
> >>>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>This kind of snippet can and is used in programs that real people use.
> >>
> >>And such a program would be derivative of the snippet, in a copyright
> >>sense. NOT because the program "contains a copy of" the snippet; a
> >>literal copy is not necessary to violate copyright. Because the program
> >>is, in the copyright sense, derivative.
> >
> >Nonsense. Copyright protects an expression of the idea, not the idea.
>
> Yes, that is the kind of metaphorical description that makes copyright
> law "nonsense" in the hands of the naive. Copyright protects the bottom
> line, whether authors get paid, not any 'expression of ideas'.
No, it doesn't.
Copyright protects the author's right to control who copy his work.
This mean that I can (legally) stop you from copying my work.
Whatever my work has any monetary value is really unimportant unless I want
you to pay me for the infrigement.
> >If the expression is not copied, the work is not derivative.
>
> This is untrue, demonstrably. If the work is derivative of the
> expression, it is derivative. It is not derivative if it is derivative
> of the idea, is what I think you are trying to say. Obviously, I
> haven't said it any better, because of the conflicted use of the term
> 'derivative'.
>
> The facts are: a derivative work does not need to contain a copy of the
> original to be derivative in the copyright sense. Whether any
> derivative work is "derivative in the copyright sense" is up to a judge
> to determine.
Really? First time I heard about it.
That is the FSF defination of it, maybe, but that is not the defination of
the rest of the (legal) work.
In order for a work to be a derivative of another work, it had to be based
on the original work.
I don't think that you would find someone to argue that a shell to a library
is a deriative work, but *using* a library is not.
Any more than making a mention of Rudyard Kipling's The Old Issue makes this
post a deriative of his works.
*This* makes this post a deriative:
All we have of freedom, all we use or know--
This our fathers bought for us long and long ago.
Ancient Right unnoticed as the breath we draw--
Leave to live by no man's leave, underneath the Law.
-- Rudyard Kipling
The Old Issue
October 9, 1899
And even then, he would have a hard time to sue me, one reason is being
dead, the other being fair use claues.
> >What you want is a patent, that protects the idea in every conceivable
> >expression.
>
> No, patents do not protect ideas any more than copyright does. Nor does
> patent prevent commercial use of someone else's idea, in any way but the
> way in which the idea was expressed in the patent.
Yes, it does.
Check on "who made the first phone" for details, as well as patent law, and
why you can't create efficent GIFs without paying tons of money.
A patent means that no one can do what you do, no matter how they got to it.
A copyright simply mean that they can't use your way to do it.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 17:55:15 -0400
James Philips wrote:
>
> Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <3af47ba7_2@newsfeeds>:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Linux was/is and will continue to be a miserable failure as a consumer
> >> desktop OS until it wakes up and starts offering an end result that is
> >> superior instead of an inferior result based upon theoretical superior
> >> technologies.
> >
> >Actually, Linux isn't necessarily for instant gratification. If you
> >want that, go to se a whore. The computing equivalent of that whore is
> >MS Windows. Linux is a great platform. The only advantage Windows has
> >over it is application availability. That's it. The ease-of-use
> >arguments are bogus.
>
> Linux is a great OS in a lot of ways, but it's hard to see how you can
> really claim that it's as easy to learn as Windows. Even most Linux
> advocates realise that a total beginner can't use Linux without learning
> quite a lot.
Same goes for Windows....so, your point is?
>
> >The fact is that Windows is NOT easy to use, but rather, people have
> >already learned it and are familiar with it, so that gives a false
> >impression that it is easy to use.
>
> That's true to a certain extent, but I know quite a few Windows users who
> know next to nothing about Windows and don't want to learn, they know how
> to install and launch apps and that's about it. If they had any problems
> with Windows, such as hardware not plugging and playing correctly they
> would call tech support before even reading the manual.
>
> Most Windows users do have to learn a fair amount, because sooner or later
> they will run into problems when upgrading hardware or installing new apps.
> But in my experience there's a lot less in Windows that needs to be
> learned. Even with the most easy to use Linux distributions most people
> are going to have to learn about the system before they can successfully
> set it up with all their hardware and software working.
>
> James
--
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: "Mike" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 21:55:32 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> If I'm a loser, then why do I make more $$$ in one day than you do in a
week?
Gee, Aaron, are you really sure you do? Would you like to tell us all how
you know?
-- Mike (well, because I don't think you do, that's why) --
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 17:55:52 -0400
James Philips wrote:
>
> Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in <3af47ba7_2@newsfeeds>:
>
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >> Linux was/is and will continue to be a miserable failure as a consumer
> >> desktop OS until it wakes up and starts offering an end result that is
> >> superior instead of an inferior result based upon theoretical superior
> >> technologies.
> >
> >Actually, Linux isn't necessarily for instant gratification. If you
> >want that, go to se a whore. The computing equivalent of that whore is
> >MS Windows. Linux is a great platform. The only advantage Windows has
> >over it is application availability. That's it. The ease-of-use
> >arguments are bogus.
>
> Linux is a great OS in a lot of ways, but it's hard to see how you can
> really claim that it's as easy to learn as Windows. Even most Linux
> advocates realise that a total beginner can't use Linux without learning
> quite a lot.
>
> >The fact is that Windows is NOT easy to use, but rather, people have
> >already learned it and are familiar with it, so that gives a false
> >impression that it is easy to use.
>
> That's true to a certain extent, but I know quite a few Windows users who
> know next to nothing about Windows and don't want to learn, they know how
> to install and launch apps and that's about it. If they had any problems
> with Windows, such as hardware not plugging and playing correctly they
> would call tech support before even reading the manual.
>
> Most Windows users do have to learn a fair amount, because sooner or later
> they will run into problems when upgrading hardware or installing new apps.
> But in my experience there's a lot less in Windows that needs to be learned.
It's quite obvious that your experience is rather deficient.
> Even with the most easy to use Linux distributions most people
> are going to have to learn about the system before they can successfully
> set it up with all their hardware and software working.
>
> James
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The _one_ thing that pisses me off about Linux
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 17:57:15 -0400
Richard Thrippleton wrote:
>
> First, let's get one thing straight; I'm not a wintroll. I don't
> even run windows on any machine I own. I am a committed a Linux advocate
> (and evangelist). But I am gonna rant (and there is foam coming out of my
> mouth). What pisses me off about quite a significant amount of Linux
> software is the ridiculous x86 bias, ridiculous to the point of ignorance
> of the existance of other CPUs.
> On many occasions, I have wasted much bandwidth and time
> obtaining sourcecode to some killer app, only to find that it will only
> compile on x86, and there is f***all warning in previous documentation.
> There seems to be some kind of arrogant view that Linux is only run on
> x86 (I use PPC). Some lamer has put in an ASM hack; that's fine, but would
> it really be too much trouble to put in a C substitute, or at least some
> >warning< next to that big hunk of megabytes large source code?? I
> have to use a modem half the year and this isn't helping!
Write to the author and tell him that he's writing non-portable code,
and that he's an ignorant git for doing so.
> All I want is fair warning that they haven't taken into account CPUs
> other than their own. So those of you who know (or are) developers, _please_
> bang some heads and let people know that there are people who do not use
> x86s. Oh, and let them know that some people have their ints ordered the
> _right_ way round :>
>
> Richard
--
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: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Windows enthusiasts take on Mundie's speech
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 16:40:32 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Adam Warner wrote:
> >
> > Paul Thurrott of WinInfo:
> >
> > http://www.wininformant.com/Articles/Index.cfm?ArticleID=20985
> >
> > (when I wrote "'nuff said" the other day it was only because I was just
> > posting the URL :-)
> Oh, just as a follow up, how can a GPL program fork? when all
> modifications must be made public and handed back to the author. The
> only time a program can fork is under the BSD license. BSD License, the
> license Microsoft loves, because they can steal the code, re-jiggy it,
> repackage it, and claim it as their own.
Another example of people that advocate the GPL, but don't understand it.
The GPL does not require changes to be "handed back to the author". In
fact, you don't have to give the author anything. You only need to give the
code to the people you give your software to (including changes), which may
or may not be the original author.
Further, even if the original author does get the changes, they are under no
requirement to merge them back into the tree.
------------------------------
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:02:56 -0400
Greg Cox wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > 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*.
>
> Max, I've already corrected you on this in another thread. I have a
> Word for Windows 1.0 manual and it says it requires Windows 2.03 to run.
> It DID NOT ship with Windows 3.0. Got it?
>
OK. The manual says it needs at least Windows 2.03 to run. How does that
show it didnt ship with Windows 3.0 and that it would need at least 2.03
to run?
-snip-
--
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:03:55 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > billwg wrote:
> > >
> > > Do you have any authentication for that letter? That condition would be
> an
> > > explicit violation of the Consent Agreement and would be of extreme
> interest
> > > to the DOJ, at least the previous administration DOJ. I suspect that
> the
> > > story is bogus since there was such an extensive search made by the DOJ
> for
> > > any such agreements or documents from Microsoft to the extent of
> subpoenaing
> > > contracts from most of the OEMs over the objection of Microsoft but by
> order
> > > of the Jackson court.
> > >
> >
> > It was published in a book.
> > The Microsoft File.
> > Read it.
>
> I'm sure that DoJ did. They never brought it in court, meaning that they
> can't bring it in court. Meaning you have no other documentation.
>
How do you know it is not presented in evidence? Do you have a catlog of
evidence and if so, have you searched it?
--
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:05:31 -0400
JS PL wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > billwg wrote:
> > >
> > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> > > > >
> > > > >Saying this doesn't make it so. Until 1995, Microsoft
> > > > >sold a version of Windows separate from DOS.
> > > >
> > > > The question is not whether they sold it (had it available). The
> > > > question is how much people bought it. People weren't buying it, so
> MS
> > > > forced it on them: this is documented by Microsoft's internal
> documents.
> > > > Arguing against it just makes you look stupid.
> > > >
> > > This doesn't seem to gibe with the Caldera case theory for one thing.
> Their
> > > assertion was that Microsoft used Windows to leverage MS-DOS, not
> vice-versa
> > > as you seem to be saying.
> >
> > Letter to Mike Davis, Diamond Trading
> >
> > Dear Mike
> > Further to out conversation yesterday, I am writing to confirm that
> > Microsoft is unable to supply you Windows as a single product. Microsoft
> > will only sell you Windows as a combined package with MS-DOS 5.
> > Yours Sincerely
> > OEM Sales
> > Microsoft Ltd.
>
> typo and all huh?.. That looks real authentic. Oh I see, it came from the
> fictional book The Microsoft File.
Fictional? Prove it. Better yet, sue th author. If it is so fictional,
tell us why Microsoft didnt sue.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why 90% of CEO's are morons
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 16:48:16 -0500
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> >
> > You've posted this exact same diatribe in here at least 3 or 4 other
times.
> > (in fact, it's almost verbatim).
> >
> > How many more times will you post it?
> >
> How many times must a person tell you that you are incorrect?
Well, at least one other time.
http://groups.google.com/groups?q=netwinder+lotus+group:comp.os.linux.advoca
cy&hl=en&lr=&safe=off&scoring=r&rnum=2&ic=1&selm=9cp5f6%24elb%241%40lust.ihu
g.co.nz
------------------------------
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: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:10:37 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > They foisted M$ OSs on people. You ststement does not hold water.
> > >
> > > They gave their customers what they wanted; that is what
> > > it takes to be a top-20 OEM.
> >
> > No, they didnt. You are plainly not worth any more time. You ignore
> > evidence, including quotes from M$ executive.
>
> If you've got a quote from an MS excutive who says that
> the customers did not want Windows, I'd like to see it.
>
Ive provided you with quoted from the Vobis CEO saying he wanted to
continue selling DR-DOS, because he wanted to offer that choice to his
customers, and the M$ predatory pricing reply.
You ignore it.
You are a waste of time.
> And no, I won't shell out for The Microsoft File. I don't
> need a new source of zealotry; I've got you. :D
>
> [snip]
> > > No. It's about selling Microsoft product.
> >
> > No, its about Micro$ofts criminal, unethical, immoral behavior.
> > If you agree with their methods, you can much of a peron, either.
>
> I agree with their methods. I'm no Peron; I'm not even
> slightly Argentine. And I can't sing.
--
Rick
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
