Linux-Advocacy Digest #405, Volume #34 Thu, 10 May 01 19:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product) (T. Max
Devlin)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:03 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 20:37:08
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 05:31:17
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> >> >Okay, that makes more sense, I guess.
>> >> >Can you patent an API?
>> >> >(Why do I bother asking, you can patent *anyting* in US of A?)
>> >>
>> >> Its the "API", not the patent, which is a floating abstraction, Ayende.
>> >
>> >The API is the least abstract part of the program. It is specifically
>> >what the components *must* use to correctly interoperate. [...]
>>
>> Oh, yea. Real concrete. Not abstract at all. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>
>If you understood anything about programming you would know that
>you must use specific program statements to invoke the functions in
>a library. Those statements are the API and are not abstract at all. If
>you don't use them exactly as required, the thing on the other side of
>the interface will not work.
If you understood anything besides programming, you would know that none
of that makes it "concrete". Declarations in language (regardless of
the language) are, indeed, abstract. Some are more abstract than
others. Were this a different argument, I might easily be arguing that
the term "program" is not concrete, but a floating metaphor used to
describe a purely mental construct. This is the Platonic method, and
predates programming by quite a while. In this case, we are presuming
the terms "library" and "program" are concrete, though. As I have
explained, this means the term "API" is comparatively ephemeral. "An
API" is an abstraction referring to the interactions between a program
and a library (one or more of which might interact the same way),
denoting a "platform" "on top of which" applications (programs) are
developed. When you are learning "the Win32 API" or "the POSIX API",
you are merely learning what minimal part of the code in those libraries
(and I am aware how comparatively little it is) you need to know in
order to use those libraries.
The FSF has pointed out that "an API" such as Win32 or POSIX is, itself,
far more concrete than an API that only one library supports. And if
that one library is GPL, they have claimed that "using the API" is,
analytically, using the library. Such use being explicitly forbidden by
the private contract (copyright license) demanded by the author, they
are prepared to argue the point to a judge.
You are certainly free to disagree with their interpretation of either
copyright or contract law. But unless you are doing it in front of said
judge, you're pissing into the wind.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:03 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 20:54:03
[...]
>I am not aware of anything in copyright law that says this makes a
>difference.
>Show me.
I am not either. Its in the contract, though, and that's what matters.
If you don't agree to it, then you don't agree with it. What's the
problem?
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:04 GMT
Said chrisv in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 15:07:44 GMT;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Max wonders why you seem unable to address him like an adult would.
>>
>>Because most people use a lot of metaphysical ideas in the way they
>>'explain' how the world works to themselves. Illogical, unscientific,
>>yet still undeniably practical. As long as ignorance doesn't bother
>>you, that is.
>>
>>You don't honestly think philosophers are insulted when everyone else
>>claims they're just playing word-games, do you?
>
>Said the guy who lost the argument. Again.
You don't honestly think I give a rip how many times you pre-emptively
and unilaterally declare victory, do you?
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:06 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 20:22:21
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >
>> >> >The API is the agreement - by definition. If you don't understand
>> >> >that, there is no point in arguing about what it is.
>> >>
>> >> If I am required to understand anything "by definition", then it is not
>> >> worth understanding. It is something to be memorized, not understood.
>> >
>> >It is specifically what must be used for the components to work together.
>>
>> Really? I can't just write the program to use that library?
>
>'Just' using a library involves using it's API. There is no other way.
Of course not; it is a metaphysical certainty. It is far more absolute
than any physical law could possibly be. I am well aware of that. But
since the days of William of Ockam, we have had a clue to know what to
do in such situations. Since "using the library" is all that is
necessary, "using the library" is all that is done, whether you CALL it
'using the API' or not.
>The API is by definition the interface that you use to access it.
"Interfaces", like most other technical terms, melt away under Socratic
analysis. They have analytical value (for engineers), but are
objectively meaningless and non-existent.
>There
>may be other parts of the API involving documentation, descriptions,
>etc. but the core part is the actual interface that must be invoked in
>your program statements, like the names of the functions. If you don't
>use them, you won't access the routines on the other side of the
>interface.
Yes, I know. And DOS interrupts were an API, because there were
routines on the other side.
--
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: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:07 GMT
Said billwg in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 00:49:03 GMT;
>You don't seem to have a very good grasp of the issues here, Max.
I never do seem to.
>In spite
>of what you may have heard at the anti-MS choir practice, simply continuing
>to offer an improved product, even in a monopoly setting is not illegal.
Whatever.
>For the present case, the current trend is towards a vindication of
>Microsoft in the DCCCOA because the DOJ case and the Jackson FOF failed to
>show that Netscape was ever a genuine threat to Microsoft.
There are no "trends". We await the judges decisions, and their's
alone. The pundits are useful for those of you who have less knowledge
about the specifics of the case, perhaps, but even that claim is
dubious.
MS stands convicted of monopolization and restraint of trade on three
counts. Other than some pointed questioning by the appellate justices
during oral arguments, quite appropriate considering their necessary
skepticism in regards a case they are reviewing, there is no rational
argument which exonerates Microsoft.
>Now don't go on about the e-mails; it is not enough for Microsoft itself to
>think that Netscape was a threat.
Certainly not. Yet when paired to the actions they took, and the fact
that these were the actions they intended, and that the results (close
to 100% market share) were anticipated and desired, in fact were the
very reason and purpose for those actions, well....
Presumption of evidence doesn't trump a preponderance of the evidence,
I'm afraid.
>The DOJ has to have shown that it
>actually was, whether or not perceived as such by Microsoft. Judge Edwards
>was pretty firm on that point in the hearings and the DOJ seemed to concede
>the point at the end of the discussion. Bottom line: the DOJ loses the
>appeal.
I guess we shall wait and see, hm?
--
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: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:08 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > So Macs apps today are built to the same
>> > Toolbox they were in 1983, despite it's
>> > well know defects.
>>
>> What defects are those? Multitasking? It does that pretty well for an OS
>> that was never designed for it.
>
>Well, I don't really think so, but it's true that the initial design
>of the toolbox made it hard to get right.
The initial design was the initial design, not the current design, is
that what you're saying?
>That kind of my point; the toolbox has needed
>an update *badly* for at least a decade now. It's been
>holding them back for at least that long, and multitasking
>is an example.
I'd talk to Mac people about that, not Wintrolls. Wintrolls obviously
have a rather flawed concept of "update" to begin with.
>> Protected memory? It does pretty well for an OS that was
>> never with it.
>
>Not really. MacOS could at least protect application
>zones from each other, even with the toolbox it had.
Protected memory != "protect application zones", I would bet. More
trolling.
--
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: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:09 GMT
Said billwg in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 00:55:52 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said billwg in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 16:23:34 GMT;
>> >No you don't recall correctly. They're still very much around and
>changed
>> >their name last year to Previo. They're still in the business of suing
>> >everyone for compression algorithm patent infringement.
>> >
>> >If you're not worried about destroying your myths, read about the
>original
>> >settlement in the Dr. Dobbs Journal at
>> >http://www.ddj.com/articles/1994/9455/9455c/9455c.htm.
>>
>> Thanks. The info in DDJ wouldn't interest me, nor would I take its
>> technical veracity as proof of its correct interpretation of the legal
>> points.
>>
>I doubt that you would recognize it if it did, but the DDJ article is not
>technical.
Thus, it is highly suspect. Get it?
>It is just background material on the case itself, including the
>main issues which were that the patent that Microsoft purchased was
>infringing on the patent that Stac purchased. Neither company was the
>original inventor of anything. But you don't want to know any facts, eh?
Yes, I do. The case was MS infringing on Stac's patent. Who created
them is meaningless; it's who owns them that is all that matters. But
you don't care about any facts, eh?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:10 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 23:15:13
[...]
>Perhaps when you graduate from the hell that telnet is - I mean, how
>limiting! - into the year 2000 and beyond you'll realize how silly your
>hanging on to the past is. I mean, all this worship of telnet and the
>command line. You sound like an Amish person swearing off technology! I
>can't remember the last time I needed the command line or even felt the urge
>to time travel into days of old...
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. Perhaps someday you'll understand something about how
computers work, Jan.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:11 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 23:49:42
>"Neil Cerutti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jan Johanson posted:
>> >Perhaps this is because you would open NOTEPAD and not run
>> >edit.com - DOH!
>>
>> Actually, Notepad sucks, even compared to edit.com.
>>
>> >WHY on earth would you penalize yourself with some crappy text
>> >based interface when a beautiful set of antialiased fonts of any
>> >size you can imagine are right there on your desktop?
>>
>> A computer *is* fundamentally a text-based interface. Sometimes
>> you just don't want the extra abstraction layers getting in your
>> way. Using a lower level of abstraction can be more efficient.
>
>But less functional.
No, less convenient functionality; far more functional. Doh!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:12 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 23:18:10
>"Neil Cerutti" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Jan Johanson posted:
>> >Perhaps this is because you would open NOTEPAD and not run
>> >edit.com - DOH!
>>
>> Actually, Notepad sucks, even compared to edit.com.
>
>I don't agree, what does edit.com (which just fires up the QB IDE in text
>editor mode) do that notepad doesn't do so well?
Not a lot. Which clearly means notepad sucks, compared to edit.com,
within the scope of the program itself. Notepad is a windows app, which
makes it a bit more convenient outside of the program's functionality,
but Notepad lacks the split screen, the concise and convenient keystroke
help, and in older versions of notepad (like the one I've got on Win95b)
they removed the "Replace" function in order to encourage people to use
Write/Wordpad so they can infect their files with MS proprietary
formats.
>> >WHY on earth would you penalize yourself with some crappy text
>> >based interface when a beautiful set of antialiased fonts of any
>> >size you can imagine are right there on your desktop?
>>
>> A computer *is* fundamentally a text-based interface. Sometimes
>> you just don't want the extra abstraction layers getting in your
>> way. Using a lower level of abstraction can be more efficient.
>
>A car *is* fundamentally a fancy horse and wagon, sometimes it's good to
>smell the, um, lower level of abstraction.
Bwah-ha and guffaw, man. Computers are first number-based, then
text-based, then we get to fancy things like GUIs. It's not a level of
abstraction, it's the way they actually work. You ever notice all that
text they use in programming languages?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:13 GMT
Said Chad Myers in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 23:49:11
>"Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:3af8daf2$0$41631$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > On Mon, 7 May 2001 22:42:33 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Text base applications would adjust automatically, it's those
>> applications
>> > > that makes assumtions about screen size (Edit.com, as you mention) that
>> > > can't be resized.
>> >
>> > The applications you refer to as "text based" don't adjust, they just
>> > have no idea how big the screen is in the first place bacuse they just
>> > write lines of text to stdout.
>> >
>> > The ones like edit.com are the ones that ought to adust. Hey, I fully
>> > understand why old DOS apps don't adjust, I just do not get why they
>> > ship old DOS apps with NT or why even new console apps don't seem to
>> > know about resizeable windows.
>>
>> Perhaps this is because you would open NOTEPAD and not run edit.com - DOH!
>>
>> WHY on earth would you penalize yourself with some crappy text based
>> interface when a beautiful set of antialiased fonts of any size you can
>> imagine are right there on your desktop?
>
>Perhaps he's so used to Unix where the GUI is so ugly and worthless
>that the only way to get something done is from the CLI.
Then again, perhaps he's just not stuck with monopoly crapware.
>As for anti-aliased fonts in *nix? Perhaps in 20 more years =)
Or 2 years ago, whichever comes first, eh? Doh!
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft standards... (was Re: Windows 2000 - It is a crappy product)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:14 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 23:16:13
>"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9db4js$q6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > What you need to understand is that no one gives a shit about "console"
>> > apps
>>
>> What you don't understand is that not only are yo extremely wrong, you
>> are also extremely stupid.
>
>Wow - again your amazingly detailed replies filled with intelligent rebuttle
>impress us so much.
At least his statement was based on real information, while your
statement was based on imaginary information.
>And you actually defend your devotion to the command line ??
>in public?
"Devotion"? HA! "Ability to use". As in "you have none, and expect us
to think it is an advantage." BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA!
>does your mother know you've left the basemet?
Do you still beat your meat?
--
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.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:15 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 00:05:53
>JS PL wrote:
>>
>> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Steve Sheldon wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > >
>> > > > You might as well complain about the inadequate amount of storage
>> > > > capacity on a hard drive cause the last time you used one was
>> > > > 1996. Notice where 1996 is in the following:
>> > > >
>> > > > Linux kernel history:
>> > > > ---------------------
>> > > > Pre-1.0: 1991 - 1994
>> > > > version 1.x.xx: 1994 - 1996*
>> > > > version 2.0.xx - 2.1.xx: 1996 - 1999
>> > > > version 2.2.xx: 1999 - present
>> > > > version 2.4.0 - January 4, 2001
>> > > > version 2.4.1 - January 29, 2001
>> > > > version 2.4.2 - February 21, 2001
>> > > > version 2.4.3 - March 29, 2001
>> > > > version 2.4.4 - April 27, 2001
>> > >
>> > > Yes, and notice how little has really changed... Version numbers don't
>> tell
>> > > the whole story.
>> >
>> > That's probably why MS doesn't use version numbers anymore. They rely
>> > on marketing glitz and catchy monikers.
>>
>> I thought they relied on some mythical "monopoly" status that has been
>> granted to them by the King of Fantasy Land.
>> You mean to say they have to actually market the products to customers? And
>> they use tried and true marketing glitz and catchy monikers to do it?
>
>Pretty much true. Otherwise , why have a marketing dept.?? Why don't
>they instead just call it from windows 3.1 and 3.11 to 4.0, 4.01, 4.1,
>4.11, & 4.2 for the 9x series?
>What was wrong with NT from 3 to 4? Why name NT Win2000? Or even the
>new one XP??
>These are marketing decisions that are based on Madison avenue
>techniques that are used industry wide by Corps. Linux really doesn't
>have a corp. per se.
And believe it or not, without any advertising to speak of, it is
growing in popularity. Some say that, due to its business model alone,
it will soon be the de facto standard. Fascinating study in just how
much of a smoke screen 'advertising' seems to be.
For example, the only way that XP could *possibly* replace WinDOS (DOS,
9x, whatever you want to call it) is if it is, in fact, *the next
version of WinDOS*. That's just the way the *market* works. Nobody
gives a rip about code, and the consumer might be naive enough to
believe the developer is serious when they claim it matters, they are
not stupid enough to actually allow meaningless rhetoric like that to
change their buying decisions.
MS will be free of DOS when it no longer has an application barrier to
protect Windows, and not a moment before then, regardless of what press
release contortions or technological permutations they may perpetrate.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:16 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 23:03:05
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Dave Martel in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 23:47:55
>> >On 9 May 2001 00:39:02 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>This is just true and while it
>> >>may have taken a long time with, perhaps, some broken promises along the
>> >>way - the time has finally arrived.
>> >
>> ><insert cartoon of Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown>
>>
>> ROTFLMAO!
>
>Picture the look on Lucy's face when Charlie kicks the SHIT outta the ball.
Charles Shultz is rolling over in his grave, man. That never happens,
see...
>That's the look I'll enjoy seeing on anti-MS people's face - if they have
>the balls to admit it.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. How are we going to tell? When it has 90% market
share? Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:17 GMT
Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 21:21:19
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 06:32:07
>> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >> On 9 May 2001 00:43:02 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Your car has unique ID numbers etched into 100 locations, all recorded in a
>> >> >corporate database and shared with the police and other dealers - you don't
>> >> >have a choice. That doesn't bother you? Seen any black helicopters lately?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> But I own my vehicle outright. It's all mine and it won't refuse to run if
>> >> I make improvements to it.
>> >>
>> >No, but the manufacturer of your vehicle might cancel your warrenty if
>> >they don't like what you did to "improve" it.
>>
>> Oh, really? Guffaw. Case closed. ;-)
>
>"Guffaw your way over to www.ford-diesel.com and look at the forums.
>Several people have had problems with Ford canceling their engine
>warrenty because of the installation of an exhaust brake.
Last I recall, there were some minor distinctions between warranties and
software licenses. Of course, 'chat's comments involved *software*, not
licensing, but the difference does tend to dissolve when trying to call
both monopoly crapware and open source both "software".
In the end, that point is moot. Warrantee != license, and your analogy
is painfully mistaken.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 23:04:18 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 9 May 2001 23:02:07
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On 9 May 2001 00:43:02 -0500, Jan Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >Your car has unique ID numbers etched into 100 locations, all recorded in
>a
>> >corporate database and shared with the police and other dealers - you
>don't
>> >have a choice. That doesn't bother you? Seen any black helicopters
>lately?
>>
>> But I own my vehicle outright. It's all mine and it won't refuse to run
>if
>> I make improvements to it.
>
>So don't buy licensed software who's terms you don't agree with. Simple.
Of course it's simple. Or would be, if there were a free market rather
than a criminal monopoly. Doh!
--
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
******************************
