Linux-Advocacy Digest #337, Volume #34 Tue, 8 May 01 18:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: MS Must be getting really desperate ("Mad.Scientist")
Re: MS Must be getting really desperate ("Mad.Scientist")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Chad Everett)
Re: Microsoft's move away from perpetual licensing proves that the closed source
model doesn't work! (Craig Kelley)
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (Craig Kelley)
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT ("Erik Funkenbusch")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Mad.Scientist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Must be getting really desperate
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 21:30:32 -0500
Even IBM and Intel are wearing Tux shirts now. That should tell you that
Linux is a good OS.
"kosh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d2176$pkr$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Their paid trolls are getting really desperate. This reminds me of the FUD
> campaign against OS/2. You would think we were removing their ability to
> choose which os they are using by the way they are attacking linux in this
> newsgroup.
>
> Honestly I don't give a damn if a windows user hates linux and doesn't
want
> to use it however I expect the same courtesy in return. Also I think it is
> wrong that when you buy a new computer you end up paying the ms tax wether
> you want to or not. Hell most places charge you for windows even if you
> don't get windows on that machine because of the damn agreements they have
> with ms.
>
> Considering that even the SIIA thinks ms is in the wrong it looks like ms
> will be going down but I expect them to spend a lot of time flailing
around
> before they die.
------------------------------
From: "Mad.Scientist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS Must be getting really desperate
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 21:33:36 -0500
These M$ fanatics do not care to learn anything new. They are the Tories,
and we are the Yankees. They are the Bull Connors, and we are the MLKs.
They do not realize that they are on the wrong side of history.
"Craig Kelley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> kosh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Their paid trolls are getting really desperate. This reminds me of
> > the FUD campaign against OS/2. You would think we were removing
> > their ability to choose which os they are using by the way they are
> > attacking linux in this newsgroup.
>
> You know, I used to give the wintrolls the benefit of the doubt -- but
> lately they defend Microsoft no matter what the topic is (except Pete
> and Edwards, who can level at times). Even in the face of the latest
> "naked PC" campaign, the "linux myths" pages and this "mundie" thing
> -- they stand devout to some sort of religious cause.
>
> The only possible explanations seem to be (to me):
>
> o Being paid by Microsfot
> o Feeling threatened by Linux
> o Mental disorder
>
> > Honestly I don't give a damn if a windows user hates linux and
> > doesn't want to use it however I expect the same courtesy in
> > return. Also I think it is wrong that when you buy a new computer
> > you end up paying the ms tax wether you want to or not. Hell most
> > places charge you for windows even if you don't get windows on that
> > machine because of the damn agreements they have with ms.
> >
> > Considering that even the SIIA thinks ms is in the wrong it looks
> > like ms will be going down but I expect them to spend a lot of time
> > flailing around before they die.
>
> And you could be correct that this is what we are seeing here.
> Microsoft makes some cool technology (SOAP is great!) and some cool
> hardware (my keyboard is msnatural) -- but they always come back and
> insult me with their insane business policies.
>
> I just ordered the new iBook (www.apple.com/ibook) and MacOS X to go
> with it; I'm also ordering YDL (http://www.yellowdoglinux.com) when
> 2.0 ships later this month. At least it's one way to get a slim
> laptop without Windows or Word installed on it.
>
> --
> It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
> Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Tue, 08 May 2001 20:55:21 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > You may be right, but in all honesty Apple has had
> > the *worst* trouble trying to deal with their software's
> > backwards compatibility baggage.
> >
> > I hope they overcome it too, but history does not
> > encourage me in this.
>
> What worst trouble? Oh, you mean runing 68k stuff on PPC. Nope, cant be
> that. What do you mean?
Oh I mean Taligent and Rhapsody and OpenDoc and
QuickDraw GX and gawd only knows how many other
initiatives to fix their OS.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 22:58:27 +0200
In article <NQYJ6.842$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Pete Goodwin"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>Last I heard, the current court case was in favour of Microsoft.
>>
>> No, they currently stand convicted on three counts. The pundit's
>> perception of the oral arguments have no real meaning in legal terms.
>
> So what happened in the appeal court? I'm losing track here, it's gone
> very quiet over here (across the pond).
>
> The EU is currently looking at picking up the reins of impaling
> Microsoft if it all dies a death in the USA.
>
Pete,
I knew you Brits were europhobes :) Mario Monti, Commissioner for Trade
(and thus having antitrust in his portfolio) stated about 2 weeks ago
that this was exactly the deal struck with the DOJ.
Another nice point, Scott McNealy was in Europe recently to lobby for
more pressure from the European Commission. I believe he was *not* happy
with the lack of action so far <g>.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Tue, 08 May 2001 21:00:53 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d9jo9$8c4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You seem to be asking us how you would use the Windows device
> > independant printing software without using the Windows device
> > independant printing software.
> >
> > This seems like a silly question.
> >
> > How do you do device independant graphics printing on Linunx, if you
> > aren't allowed to install GhostScript?
>
> No, not really. Under the UNIX method, you can generate your files on a
> CRAY, and then ftp them over to a computer with a printer to print them.
> You can't do this under the windows system.
Windows does support network printers, actually. What
you seem to want to do with ftp is a little awkward in
Windows.
But I don't see why you have asked to be told how Windows
console apps print *without GDI*. Why is this interesting
to you?
> > BTW, are you under the impression that GDI is as painful to use as, say,
> > raw XLib? I'd suggest that printing using GDI for a console application
> > really isn't particularly *hard*.
>
> No, but it allows for no off-line stuff. Also, raw XLIB isn't that hard.
Then I don't quite see why we must eschew the GDI. :/
[snip]
> >> Not true. If all the graphics are off-line (ie printed only) then you
> >> ca write programs in standard C and standard PS and they will anywhere
> >> that has a PS interpreter and a standards conformant C compiler.
> >
> > I'd say that calling that "portable" is a stretch, though.
>
> It is as portable as you can get with graphics.
Which is to say, not very.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chad Everett)
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 8 May 2001 15:31:41 -0500
On 8 May 2001 20:19:37 GMT, Roberto Alsina <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:14:59 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Edward Rosten wrote:
>>>
>>> >> > Being warm blooded is not the thing that makes a mammal, having
>>> >> > mammae is what makes the mammal. Birds do not nurse their young,
>>> >> > mammals do
>>> >>
>>> >> Yes they do. Hatchlings are fed by their parent(s).
>>> >
>>> > Not with breast milk.
>>>
>>> So? the other guy said "birds do not nurse their young". This is false.
>>
>>MAMMALS NURSE THEIR YOUNG WITH BREAST MILK
>
>Yes that is true. However, that doesn't make "Birds do not nurse their young"
>true.
>
>I must add that *some* birds don't nurse their young, but they are rare (
Using the standard usage of "nurse" and in the context of the definition of
mammals, birds do not nurse their young, they nourish their young.
Why must one always have a dictionary when having a discourse with Roberto?:
Main Entry: 2nurse
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): nursed; nurs·ing
Etymology: Middle English nurshen to suckle, nourish, contraction of nurishen
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 a : to nourish at the breast : SUCKLE b : to take nourishment from the breast of
2 : REAR, EDUCATE
3 a : to promote the development or progress of b : to manage with care or economy
<nursed the business through hard times> c : to take charge of and watch over
4 a : to care for and wait on (as a sick person) b : to attempt to cure by care and
treatment
5 : to hold in one's memory or consideration <nurse a grievance>
6 a : to use, handle, or operate carefully so as to conserve energy or avoid
injury or
pain <nurse a sprained ankle> b : to use sparingly c : to consume slowly or over a
long period <nurse a cup of coffee>
intransitive senses
1 a : to feed an offspring from the breast b : to feed at the breast : SUCK
2 : to act or serve as a nurse
Main Entry: mam·mal
Pronunciation: 'ma-m&l
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin Mammalia, from Late Latin, neuter plural of mammalis of the
breast, from Latin mamma breast
Date: 1826
: any of a class (Mammalia) of warm-blooded higher vertebrates (as placentals,
marsupials, or monotremes) that nourish their young with milk secreted by mammary
glands, have the skin usually more or less covered with hair, and include humans
>Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft's move away from perpetual licensing proves that the closed
source model doesn't work!
Date: 08 May 2001 15:10:21 -0600
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Knowing how Microsoft thinks, and taking that into account, I suspect
> they are testing the waters to see how they can conjure up a way to
> "semi-open source" their products, have Open Source programming
> community maintain and upgrade the code, and of course have Microsoft
> some how, some way make all of the money off the entire operation with
> the programmers getting nothing.
>
> Just a thought......
Perhaps they suddenly remembered why DOS was so popular (open
development, open hardware); and they kinda want to go back to their
cash cow, know it's futile, but think they can FUD their way out of a
hairy situation (again).
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
Date: 08 May 2001 15:14:03 -0600
Getting back to the point of this thread;
Has anyone managed to run Media Player 7 or 8 under Windows 95?
That would cut a pretty big hole in Microsoft's (supposed)
back-peddling. Hmm.
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Tue, 8 May 2001 16:09:30 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 7 May 2001
> [...]
> >COM existed before SOM as well.
> >
> >SOM was first introduced with OS/2 2.0, which came out in early 1992,
just
> >weeks before COM was officially launched in Windows 3.1. They were
> >contemporaries, created independantly at about the same time.
>
> Which is it? First you say that COM 'existed before SOM', and then you
> say they were 'created at about the same time'. What besides the donuts
> at the sock puppet briefings leads you to believe that MS didn't do what
> they typically do, and just "steal IBM's ideas", implementing their own
> technology more as vaporware than anything else, to scare off the
> competition? You know, like the way they stole pen computing from Go?
I can no longer find the reference, but the basic workings of COM were
developed in 1988, however, they didn't at the time know what to do with it.
In 1990, when they began work on Windows 3.1, that work was put to use to
make OLE 2. In other words, COM existed before OLE 2, it had to, since OLE
was based on COM.
What I meant was that OLE and SOM were contemporaries. COM came first.
> >SOM and DSOM are almost entirely different technologies. SOM/DSOM do not
> >provide location transparency like COM/DCOM does. You can't take a SOM
> >object and make it a DCOM object without completely rewriting the code,
> >since the implementations are totally different.
>
> You cannot use DMTF DMO's for SNMP MIBs, either, but that doesn't make
> them "entirely different technologies"; they are both almost exactly the
> same thing, but non-interoperable. Just two different versions of the
> same idea, implemented somewhat differently because they focused on
> different sub-domains of the problem.
If they are based on the same work, they're the same technology. Clearly
DCOM and COM have entirely different implementations and work very
differently.
> >SOM had a few advantages over COM, but COM also had advantages over SOM.
> >OpenDoc was something that IBM never really fully supported even in its
own
> >software. Apple was the only company to fully embrace it, and even they
> >they saw the writing on the wall pretty quickly.
> >
> >Frankly, except for language binding mechanism of SOM, it sucked and
> >deserved to die. Hell, it didn't become CORBA compliant until about OS/2
> >3.0 IIRC.
>
> Kind of amusing watching you flail around like this. You are THE sock
> puppet, Erik. You ought to get a bonus at the next briefing.
Were you born this retarded?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
