Linux-Advocacy Digest #297, Volume #34 Mon, 7 May 01 14:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: IE (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (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: Yet another IIS security bug (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)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Mon, 7 May 2001 13:10:33 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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.
>
> Clue for the Clueless--the DOJ investigation PRECEEDS the Klintoon years.
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Mafia$oft has REPEATEDLY violated the consent decrees which they have
signed--
> particularly bundling apps with the OS--which is PRECISELY why Jackson
decided
> that breaking up was the only remedy..
A bit about the consent decree:
The only issue regarding product design that arose during the DOJ
investigation was Microsoft's inclusion of various third-party utilities in
MS-DOS 6. The DOJ raised that issue early on but did not pursue it after
Microsoft stated its legal position on so-called "technological tying."
(Holley Aff. ¶ 2.) What Microsoft told the DOJ is that the law permits
Microsoft to make whatever changes it deems appropriate to its operating
systems as long as those changes are not intended solely to injure
competitors by rendering their products incompatible. (Holley Aff. ¶ 2.)
This standard-which comes straight out the decided cases on the subject and
makes it extremely difficult to challenge a software vendor's product design
decisions under the antitrust laws.
The consent decree states that Microsoft may not require computer
manufacturers who license Windows to also license any other software
product, (such as Norton Anti Virus, Netscape Navigator ect...), but it also
explicitly states that Microsoft may develop integrated products. The latter
is what they have done by integrating Internet Explorer into Windows. And
are planning to do with Media Player n XP. Actually Media Player is ALREADY
included, but not yet integrated. Microsoft still has absolutely no fear of
integrating this media playing feature as they still know that they are
fully in the right by doing so.
It is also why the DOJ and Judge Bias Penfield quickly moved to unlawfully
expand the charges against Microsoft MID TRIAL! Leaving Microsoft no time to
prepare a competent defense for these new charges Judge Bias Penfield
repeatedly denied requests for extensions to deal with the massively
expanding case against Microsoft. Then quickly came to a one sided finding
of facts.
The case will be entirely thrown out.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 13:13:05 -0400
Tom Wilson wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Tom Wilson wrote:
> > >
> > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Tom Wilson wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > I was hoping someday that the official linux mascot would be
> the
> > > > > > > > Seagull.
> > > > > > > > Visualize this: BG running hard for cover as a flock of
> Seagulls
> > > go
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > a straffing run!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The avian mammals or the 80's new wave group with the funny
> hair?
> > > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > > > > > You mean: "The aqautic avians or the 80's new wave gropu with the
> > > funny
> > > > > hair?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > answer: yes
> > > > >
> > > > > Aquatic or no, they're still mammals...
> > > >
> > > > birds are mammals????
> > >
> > > They are warm-blooded and the feathers are just modified hairs. As far
> as
> > > the egg laying thing goes, Platypuses lay eggs and THEY are considered
> > > mammals. Birds are kind of a big question mark. Especially when you
> throw in
> > > the dinosaur thing.
> > >
> >
> > Actually, from my understanding, birds are closer to reptiles.
>
> Except for the warm-blooded part. They seem to me to be a sort of in-between
> or bridge species. Kind of the logical direction for dinosaurs to move in
> (had they not of course been wiped out so quickly) just for the efficiency
> reasons and also for the fact that atmospheric oxygen levels were declining
> (as some have illustrated). For some reason, I've always considered them,
> species-wise, to be more mammillian than reptilian. I can't quite put my
> finger on why, though.
What defines the egg-laying platypus as a mammal is that it nurses
it's young with...mammary glands.
birds don't have them, so they can't be mammals.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:14:41 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 7 May 2001 01:22:22
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Michael Pye in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 6 May 2001 16:44:24
>
>> >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.
>
>Strangely, I agree with T. Max this time.
>Beta might have better quality, but VHS could put longer films on the
>cassate.
>So, to mis-qoute Denial, Beta might be "technology superior", but it didn't
>have what the consumer.
That depends entirely on who the consumer is. The fact is that Betamax
is still very widely used, as it is the de facto standard for tape
within the broadcast industry itself!
The whole VHS/Betamax "issue" never even really happened, at least not
the way popular wisdom supposes it: the market didn't "make its choice".
It doesn't really work that way. Sure, Beta disappeared after a few
YEARS from home consumer use; lots of people made money on it before it
did, and continue to make money in other markets after. This concept of
"markets" as fixed groups of identical demand gets rather frayed around
the edges. "The market" *always* "chooses" *all* alternatives. Just
some more than others.
Of course, that all assumes legal behavior by all producers and vendors.
Monopolization is what makes these *stupid* ideas about markets seem to
make sense, as if 95% of the PC consumers (in ALL markets!) could
POSSIBLY all want the same thing! Fucking GUFFAW, people! Wake up!
--
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:14:42 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 7 May 2001 01:09:46
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>
>Really? Then why don't tell me how happy you would be when the credit card
>companies would publish *your* credit history, because of GPL?
Better they publish it openly than keep it secret from ME, like they do
now. If I owned the data, whether it was GPL might be something I'd be
concerned with. As it stands, it is *USE* of data (violating my privacy
is not forgiven by copyright claims, sorry) which is of concern, not its
distribution. GPL only covers distribution, specifically placing no
restrictions at all on use. Do I want my credit card data used by
others without my permission. Of course not.
Suggesting that the GPL is somehow a threat to my privacy, though, is
the most idiotic kind of FUD I could imagine. If you're going to
pretend to have a position, Ayende, it would be best if you didn't make
it so blatantly obvious that your goal is simply fear-mongering.
(The severity of my tone is due to the severity of the issue, not your
transgression. I am really only pointing out that you've committed a
logical fallacy in formulating your argument. Please take it as
criticism, not insult, avoid getting defensive, and accept it as quite
sincere and valid advice. Fear-mongering is not an acceptable argument,
regardless of what position you're trying to support.)
--
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:14:43 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 7 May 2001 02:55:11
[...]
>> So what's wrong with GPL?
>
>The GPL is viral & unremovable.
>When you start to GPL data, you can start GPL other things.
>What about GPLing a network protocol? Since every program that uses it is a
>derivative, every such program must be GPL.
>GPLing is not nice, spesifically because it all-encompasing natute. I don't
>have a problem with forcing people to open the changes they made to your
>code, that is logical. But I've big problems with forcing them to GPL
>*their* code.
You still haven't actually explained what is wrong with it. Yes, we'll
stipulate its "viral & unremovable" nature. So what's the PROBLEM?
There is no force involved, despite the viral nature; all infections are
entirely voluntary.
>Consider this scenrio, MS release WindowsGPL, where the license has once
Microsoft is already laying claim against other people's IP, and they're
not fucking using the GPL! CHRIST when will you learn????
--
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:14:45 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 20:47:22
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>>Windows has always present me with a dialog telling me daylight saving is
>>>in effect and this is the new time. I either accept or reject the change.
>>>No hacks required.
>>
>> I seem to recall that what the dialogue says is, at least in some versions
>> of Windows, along the lines of "Time has been changed, please verify that
>> this was correctly done". And it was a simple information box, i.e. no
>> "OK" and "Cancel" buttons, but just one "OK" button.
>>
>> In other words "We did something. Please fix it if we screwed up!"
>
>That sounds correct. However, that's not how it was portrayed in previous
>posts.
Yes it is! Nobody ever said they never presented a dialog box. YOU
claimed that they actually *asked* if you wanted to make the change,
when apparently all they do is confirm that it was made. You really
ought to own up to your error, rather than back-pedaling.
--
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:14:47 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 20:46:36
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> Does it say "accept" and "reject", or does it just say "OK" and
>> "cancel", and you're assuming the change is rejectable?
>
>Ahhhh... I usually change the time back to the correct time then hit OK. I
>don't remember if there was a cancel.
Sorry; you're obviously fantasizing. When the system changes the time
(for DST) it just presents a confirmation dialog with an OK button; it
doesn't open the control panel for setting the time, as your comment
indicates. Perhaps this changed in the newer versions of crapware, but
IIRC the poster you responded to was using Win95.
--
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:14:54 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Then, try expalain what a per-processor license is.
He was talking directly to Daniel, JS PL. But if you insist...
>The per processor license simply required the OEM to pay a royalty to
No, they are not 'royalties', they are licensing fees, and there is a
difference, and it is relevant.
>Microsoft for each computer it manufactured containing a particular
>microprocessor type during the term of the agreement. The minimum commitment
No, "per processor" licensing was never tied to a particular kind of
chip. The original PPL covered every computer an OEM sold, while the
newer version (fraudulently recreated after the consent decree) was per
"model line" of system, which again is not referenced to the type of
CPU. The "per" in "processor" is not the chip, its the system.
>provision allowed the OEM to receive a volume discount by committing to ship
No, there was no "volume discount". The price did not change based on
number of units sold; it changed based on percentage of units sold
without Windows. If an OEM did not buy 120% of the previous years
production (this is the number of systems they built, not the Windows
licenses they used) then the price would double or triple, thus ensuring
that no OEM could afford to sell anything but Windows.
>a designated number of computers. These agreements had obvious benefits for
>both the OEM and Microsoft. Microsoft did not, however, require any OEM to
No, the contracts had no benefits whatsoever for the OEM. Being able to
buy Windows was of benefit, because MS had a monopoly, so an OEM has to
sell Windows or they will go out of business. OEMs know this, and thus
the great deal of testimony against Microsoft that even MS's own
witnesses were forced to admit to, in terms of their "need to buy
Windows to satisfy their customers". Damning evidence, if you know
anything at all about anti-trust law.
>enter into a per processor license in order for the OEM to license Microsoft
>'s operating systems products. Rather, it was one of several licensing
We do not know which OEMs were literally forced to accept per processor
licenses or pay astronomical prices. There is no doubt that some were,
and neither MS nor its lawyers nor its sock puppets have ever been able
to provide any evidence that an OEM had a choice of what kind of license
they were offered.
>options made available to each OEM, and it was selected only by those OEMs
>that found it to be to their economic advantage. Indeed, the majority of
It was not forced on all OEMs, certainly, but as I have mentioned, there
is no evidence at all, not even really a credible contention based on
simple reason, that any OEM was offered a choice of licensing terms.
Certainly OEMs found it to be to their economic advantage to stay in
business. Whether they would have made more money without Microsoft's
illegal actions is speculation, but it seems almost certain, to be
honest.
>Microsoft's license agreements for its operating systems were not per
>processor agreements.
What on earth makes you say that?
--
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: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:14:58 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001 01:42:39
[...]
>I think you may be misunderstanding Ayende's tone, Max. I didn't really
>detect any sarcasm in it at all. You have to remember that the "ADA Disease"
>was a primarily American phenomenon and that it happened nearly two decades
>ago. Someone not unfortunate enough to have been around here then and caught
>up in the wave isn't going to have a perspective for my response.
You're probably right. Thanks.
--
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: Yet another IIS security bug
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:15:01 GMT
Said Giuliano Colla in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 06 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
['Intuitive' == 'Familiar'; a standard theory of mine]
>I don't believe that 'intuitive' and 'familiar' are just the same thing,
>on a human interface. We have a background, a psychology, a brain built
>in a given way, etc. etc. So if a human interface has features which
>recall other 'familiar' things (like pressing a button, following with
>the eye a moving object, etc.) it's more 'intuitive' than another one
>which doesn't recall previous 'familiar' behaviors.
I think you're going to far, trying to say that because people can
recognize "a button" and that pixels can represent 3-d buttons that
"push in" then intuitive doesn't precisely equal familiar. To the
contrary, the fact that these things are recognizable in any
human/computer interface is because they are already familiar, as visual
mimics of real-world objects. This background can be called psychology,
and we can say it is 'built into the brain', but I think that's
something of a mirage, actually. The fact is, it is built into the
physical world, how objects work and how our eyes perceive them. To
claim that because it is built into the brain it is intuitive is like
saying because it is familiar, it is built into the brain, I think.
>I have worked out my personal way to tell apart 'familiar' from
>'intuitive'. If you are familiar with interface A, and then switch to B,
>it will take some time to become familiar with B. But when you've become
>familiar with both, it turns out that it takes you more time to get used
>again to B after using A, than getting used to A after using B. It means
>that A is more 'intuitive' than B. I've been using Windows since its
>beginning, and only last year I started using KDE on Linux. But it takes
>me seconds to feel at ease when I switch from Windows to Linux KDE,
>while it takes me many minutes to get used again to Windows when coming
>from Linux. I conclude that KDE is more 'intuitive' than Windows.
Oh, christ, I LOVE IT! You've DONE it Giuliano; you've proven me wrong!
THANK YOU!
I think this means that the difference between 'intuitive' and
'familiar' is possibly "consistency", according to your description and
my intuition. Does that make sense? Or are you still thinking that it
is some 'consistency' between the interface and some platonic model of
"the perfect archetypical human/computer interface' which exists
inexplicably in our minds?
>Coming to your question I'd say that alt-tab is connected to the idea of
>making first of all disappear the current app and then popping up the
>next one. But if current app has already disappeared, the scenario is
>different, so it's not 'intuitive' to use the same command. One would
>think that, as current app has disappeared, the next one should pop up
>by itself.
It honestly seems like, when looking suddenly at desktop, you should be
able to hit 'ENTER' and have an app pop up! Somehow this seems more
intuitive, even, (at least to me, based on what *I* am familiar with)
then having the next app pop up automagically.
--
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.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:15:03 GMT
Said Pancho Villa in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 06 May 2001 18:25:47
-0700;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
> 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.
>>
>The fact of the matter is that COM and DCOM were MS ripoffs of IBM's
>SOM and DSOM. OLE is simply bloated, buggy, 2nd-rate technology. To
>this day, SOM and DSOM kick COM and DCOM's butt! Tragically, along
>with IBM's OpenDoc, another fantastic technology, SOM and DSOM have
>been pretty much destroyed by a criminal monopoly, and we are all
>suffering. :(
Wow. Kazaam, dude.
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:15:05 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 07 May 2001 02:53:44
>"Pancho Villa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> >
>> 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.
>> >
>> The fact of the matter is that COM and DCOM were MS ripoffs of IBM's
>> SOM and DSOM. OLE is simply bloated, buggy, 2nd-rate technology. To
>> this day, SOM and DSOM kick COM and DCOM's butt! Tragically, along
>> with IBM's OpenDoc, another fantastic technology, SOM and DSOM have
>> been pretty much destroyed by a criminal monopoly, and we are all
>> suffering. :(
>
>It's so amusing to watch people go to all lengths to ensure that Microsoft
>never gets any credit for anything.
It's the first I've heard of SOM and DSOM. Kind of, I don't know,
eerie, don't you think?
It's kind of amusing to notice how everything that MS takes credit for
can be directly traced back to someone else. With SCO and IBM and DR
and MS's ripping off of BASIC and CP/M and the Macintosh... just where
the fuck is this "innovation" supposed to be, 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,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:15:08 GMT
Said Chad Everett in alt.destroy.microsoft on 6 May 2001 23:24:46 -0500;
>On Mon, 07 May 2001 02:53:44 GMT, Chad Myers
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>"Pancho Villa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>> >
>>> 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.
>>> >
>>> The fact of the matter is that COM and DCOM were MS ripoffs of IBM's
>>> SOM and DSOM. OLE is simply bloated, buggy, 2nd-rate technology. To
>>> this day, SOM and DSOM kick COM and DCOM's butt! Tragically, along
>>> with IBM's OpenDoc, another fantastic technology, SOM and DSOM have
>>> been pretty much destroyed by a criminal monopoly, and we are all
>>> suffering. :(
>>
>>It's so amusing to watch people go to all lengths to ensure that Microsoft
>>never gets any credit for anything.
>
>What do you mean? Microsoft gets credit for stealing lots of innovative
>ideas.
ROTFLMAO!!!
--
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.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 17:15:11 GMT
Said Steve Sheldon in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 6 May 2001 22:08:54
>"Pancho Villa" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> The fact of the matter is that COM and DCOM were MS ripoffs of IBM's
>> SOM and DSOM. OLE is simply bloated, buggy, 2nd-rate technology. To
>> this day, SOM and DSOM kick COM and DCOM's butt! Tragically, along
>> with IBM's OpenDoc, another fantastic technology, SOM and DSOM have
>> been pretty much destroyed by a criminal monopoly, and we are all
>> suffering. :(
>
>Yes, IBM has certainly destroyed a lot of their own technologies through
>bungled marketing.
Guffaw.
> Although a lot of these marketing problems related back
>to the remedies that were imposed after they were found to be a criminal
>monopoly back 20 years ago.
Get a clue.
--
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
******************************
