Linux-Advocacy Digest #422, Volume #34 Fri, 11 May 01 10:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
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: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (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: 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: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 13:54:51 GMT
>>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>>
Aaron> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >>>>> Aaron R Kulkis writes:
>> >>
Aaron> chrisv wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> Because stupid bigots like to rationalize their hatred of gays by
>> >> >> >> blaming them for AIDS.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >No. I merely refuse to associate with people who are so fucking suicidal.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Again, the false logic from Kookis. Homosexual != suicidal.
>> >> >> Homosexuality != unprotected anal sex. Idiot.
>> >>
Aaron> Does "protection" ever break?
Aaron> a) no
Aaron> B) YES
>> >>
>> >> Is there a single documented case of HIV transmission during
>> >> condom protected sex. No.
>>
Aaron> Mostly because the gays are so promiscous that nobody has ever
Aaron> been able to determine which incident caused the infection.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>>
Aaron> However, we DO know that
>>
Aaron> A) condoms break
>>
>> Yes, but rarely.
Aaron> Would you play Russian Roulette with a 500-cylinder revolver?
No, but this is more like a million cylinder revolver.
>>
Aaron> B) the AIDS virus is small enough to get through LATEX (this is
Aaron> why anti-AIDS lubricants were invented)
>>
>> Never been known to happen, and it has been studied very carefully.
>>
>> There was a study done with over 200 couples, with one partner
>> HIV+ and the other HIV-. All couples were instructed to always
>> use condoms. One group followed that instruction, one sometimes
>> used condoms, the other never. Not one case of HIV transmission
>> occured in the 15,000 cases of intercourse in the first group.
Aaron> Spot the invented study.
Not from me. Here is the cite:
"A Longitudinal Study of Human Immunodeficiency Virus Transmission by
Heterosexual Partners", New England Journal of Medicine 331:341
(August 11, 1994). I. deVincenzi
"Condoms and HIV Transmission" (Editorial) New England Journal of
Medicine 331:391 (August 11, 1994). A.M. Johnson.
Aaron> Such a study violates *all* medical ethics codes.
Not at all, all were advised to always use condoms.
>> This means it is very hard to get HIV when using condoms, even if
>> one partner is known to have HIV.
Aaron> Do Condoms break?
Aaron> a) no
Aaron> B) YES
HIV very hard to get when using condoms. Yes.
Aaron> DOH!
>>
Aaron> The life expectancy of a male homosexual is 20 YEARS SHORTER than
Aaron> that of a male heterosexual.
>>
>> >> No, this is a falsehood, based on a fraud's lies (Paul Cameron).
>>
Aaron> No...this is a truth from the US Center for Disease Control
>>
>> Cite please. I do not believe you.
I note the lack of a cite.
Aaron> What does this tell you?
>> >> Nothing, as it is false.
Aaron> Wrong again, closet-boy.
>> Step and cite it.
I note the lack of a cite.
Again.
>> BTW, I find it amusing that you follow the bigot rule of assuming
>> everyone that objects to your bigotry is a member of the group
>> you are bigoted against. Do you also think anyone objecting to
>> anti-semitism is Jewish?
Aaron> Oh, I see...so, you object to being subjected to the same kind of
Aaron> smear as what you do to others.
I do not consider being called gay to be a smear. There is nothing
wrong with being gay. I just note the odd assumption on the part
of many bigots that objecting to the bigotry is done only by those
that are direct victims of the bigotry.
Again, do you assume anyone objecting to anti-semitism is Jewish?
Aaron> In other words, you're good at dishing it out, but you can't take it.
Aaron> Imagine that...
>> >> Note that female homosexuals have very low incidence of HIV.
Aaron> Which does nothing to lower my disgust for male homosexual activity.
>> It does however blow a hole in one of your rationalizations for your
>> irrational bigotry.
Aaron> I find eating feces to be disgusting, too. Does that mean that my
Aaron> arguments against doing so are "biased", or are you looking for another
Aaron> red herring.
Yet another non-sequiter.
--
Andrew Hall
(Now reading Usenet in alt.fan.rush-limbaugh...)
------------------------------
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: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:05 GMT
Said Edward Rosten in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 10 May 2001 20:50:20
>>> > People who GPL libraries should have their toenails slowly peeled
off
>>> > with red-hot tongs by a cackling black-hooded torturer in a medaeval
>>> > dungeon. Or be forced to use the latest version of VB...
>>> > (Bwahahahaha!)
>>
>> If you are talking about the *latest* version of VB, it's VB.NET, which
>> isn't bad at all. Similar to C# in its capabilities.
>
>Well, OK, VB.NET _can_ do anything since it is turing complete but...
>some of us don't like BASIC :-)
>
>
>>> As well as haing to program in VB, they have to write the code in Word.
>>
>> Been there, done that, not so bad. Try writing a program using edlin.
>> Now
>> *that* is a challange.
>
>Been there, done that :-)
>
>My old school had a bunch of 8086 (and 80186) RM Nimbus machines with dos
>3. I wrote all my DOS batch files in edlin. They also had BBC emulators.
>The standard method of programming was to use AU. (AUTO). The closest
>analogue to this is typing a program using cat -n
Now that you mention it, *I've* actually written programs (well, batch
files containing conditional programming, no more than 70 lines, but
they did work as designed AND were practically useful at the time) using
edlin. But I would never expect a real programmer to use edlin as a
development tool.
Then again, I would never expect a real programmer to have any interest
in anything .NET or C#, either. Just goes to show you what I know.
--
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: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:08 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 10 May 2001 07:28:21
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> If YOU are the one distributing the software, Ayende, then you have to
>> agree to distribute the source code; that is all this means. This
>> places no requirement on people who only *write* GPL code, and so it
>> need not concern any author. It is, of course, legally binding on
>> distributors, but if your intent is to distribute software, I can't
>> honestly understand why you would balk under the burden of distributing
>> software.
>>
>> You see the problem?
>
>This was talking about *selling* GPL software, not writing one.
>See Caledra CEO statement about selling GPL software.
The GPL license discusses what is necessary to *distribute* GPL software
(as per conventional application of copyright to software). It makes no
difference whether you are also writing it, or also selling it.
What is in the CEO of Caldera's statement which should illuminate this
point?
--
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: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:17 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >A translation table is not part of the key, it's part of the algorithm.
>>
>> Ummm.... Erik. It's a rather fundamental premise of information
>> processing theory that, of all the things a translation table is, it is
>> not an algorithm, and of all the things that can be algorithms, none of
>> them are translation tables. This, despite the fact that, in a
>> metaphoric sense (that being a rather loose usage of the term
>> 'algorithm', to encompass any arbitrary amount of programming code),
>> translation tables can be said to be a part of an algorithm.
>
>The process of translating is an algorithm, and the table is part of that
>algorithm, [...]
As I said, only for loose (read: inaccurate) definition of the word
"algorithm", insufficient for use in the real of cryptography. A
translation table is not an algorithm, and cannot be part of an
algorithm; it is not algorithmic, and is, as I said, the antithesis of
what an algorithm is. A translation table is the utter LACK of an
algorithm, in real and actual fact, Erik. If you're going to be
involved with technology at all and use the word, you should use it
correctly.
To wit, an algorithm is a recursive computational procedure with a
finite number of steps. Translation tables need not apply; it is a math
thing, and the only relationships are computational ones.
--
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: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:18 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 18:37:59
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >Why aren't you using PAN instead of Agent?
>>
>> Because I use Agent, not PAN. Guffaw.
>
>OK, why are you using a Windows application (which you despise?) instead
>of a Linux equivalent (which you think is wonderful?).
It's more convenient to use Windows than to avoid Windows, and I already
paid for it (and Agent) long ago. That doesn't make it reliable or
stable.
--
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: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:19 GMT
Said Pete Good win in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001
18:39:07
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> >>But in the same breathe trashes Windows, yet they're using it to post?
>> >>Puh-lease!
>>
>> But if they're using Windows, then they will have first hand knowledge
>> of its problems. This makes perfect sense to me.
>
>If they're bad mouthing Windows and praising Linux, then why are they
>still using Windows? That sounds to me like hypocracy.
You're apparently trying very hard to remain ignorant of precisely what
we are bad mouthing Windows for.
--
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: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:21 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 18:44:03
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> >There are plenty of vertical platforms where the vendor would like
>> >to control everything and lawsuits have been fought over whether
>> >developers have the right to reverse-engineer the platform in order
>> >to be able to provide added-value components. That makes me think
>> >that if other means of controlling competition were possible, like
>> >claiming that you own code that calls your library, it would also
>> >have been tried in court by now.
>>
>> Why? If I am presuming correctly that you mean this "claiming you own
>> code that calls your library" is supposed to reference the GPL (which
>> does no such thing), until it is tried in court, there's no reason to
>> presume it isn't perfectly legal.
>
>Right, the GPL does not say any such thing. It says you have the right
>to use the covered code any way you want.
Yea; as long as you agree to the contract.
>However, in the RIPEM
>case and others, the FSF has made the claim that they own or control
>code written by others that does not contain or copy any GPL'd work,
>simply because it calls their interface.
No, they claimed that the person who owned and controlled code based on
GPL libraries were infringing on software THEY didn't own, by using GPL
code without agreeing to the GPL license.
Call it predatory if you want, but don't call it contrary to copyright
law unless you can prove that it is. Do YOU know any way to write
software that uses a library without using the library? (Aside from the
legally non-existent concept of an API, of course, an separate argument
I am even now pursuing. Feel free to pile on, but please don't beg the
question.)
All the FSF claimed was that the code must be distributed under the GPL;
they did not dispute anything else about how the authors controlled it.
This was, to them, a legally defensible claim, because they wrote RIPEM,
called the whole thing a lark, and probably forgot all about it. Still,
the message was clear: if you use GPL software in development, you have
to agree to the GPL.
If you're going to claim it is otherwise, I'm going to claim that I can
break every software license agreement I engage in.
To be perfectly honest, I don't care which way we go, as long as we're
consistent.
>> It's a private contract we're talking
>> about, so regardless of your construction of copyright law or mine,
>> you're just second-guessing for no apparent reason when you claim it is
>> in some way in error.
>
>No, it is not a private contract. The FSF claims that it is copyright law
>that makes the work that simply references the GPL library a derived
>work, even though nothing in the law or any court cases supports the
>bizarre claim that copyright is involved when the covered work is
>not copied or distributed.
You've described a relationship identical to the situation with
Microsoft EULAs. You'll notice one of the first clauses in these
licenses states "the software covered by this license is a copyrighted
work." It then proceeds to ignore this, as it should, stipulating that
you cannot do what you are already prevented from doing by copyright law
itself, and this is appropriate because it is not a copyright license.
It is a trade secret license. A private contract between individuals is
not something that can automatically over-ride copyright law, but where
it does not directly contradict copyright law (and the GPL's claim does
not, according to them, and there is, despite any argument from
ignorance, a reason it has not been proven otherwise in court) it is
binding.
You may have just pointed out that the GPL is similar (though it is
still distinct because it is the same license for both developer and end
user), but this does not in any way make it invalid. Developers do not
have to agree to the license, but then again they don't have to use the
software, either, as the GPL itself points out.
I fully and entirely and completely and even enthusiastically (and
apparently vehemently as well) support the right of any developer,
producer, author, or vendor of software to claim that this contract is
not valid, and that since they are not distributing the GPL library,
they cannot be infringing if they use it's API. I'd like to see them go
to court, and believe it or not, I'd like to see them win. It will be
just another precedent that identifies yet more clearly the problem of
licensing consumer software.
>> >However, use of a library by the
>> >end user is in most cases explicitly allowed if there are licensing terms
>> >on it at all, or assumed to be allowed under fair use since you must
>> >be allowed to use it to provide the functionality you purchased.
>>
>> Use of a library by the end user requires no copyright license, under
>> any conditions whatsoever.
>
>Copyright and licenses are opposing things. Copyright takes away your
>right to copy and use anything at all, and forces you to agree to licensing
>terms that give you that right at all.
That's a nice convenient metaphysical relationship, that copyright and
license are "opposing things". But they are also simply the same thing;
matters of law and contract.
>The GPL gives you the right to copy
>and use GPL covered works, and its restrictions only involve subsequent
>distribution. Someone who is not distributing the GPL'd work itself should
>never be affected by its restrictions.
I agree; end-user license agreements on software are bullshit. We'll
put down our gun when Microsoft puts down theirs. I think that says it
all.
[...]
--
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: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:22 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 18:47:25
>"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> > And maybe MS could add such restrictions, but they might not be
>interested
>> > in forbidding users from writing programs for their own use. Perhaps
>> > it is inappropriate to call that philosophy, but it's close.
>>
>> I don't see a difference here. FSF is not interested in forbidding
>> users from writing programs for their own use.
>
>There is no evidence one way or another for that. As the GPL states,
>its scope doesn't and can't cover that case. However, the FSF has
>been interested in making it difficult for other free software to be
>developed, as in the RIPEM case.
All it does is ensure that what free software is made is actually free,
and remains so.
In fact, the 'aversion principle' you hypothesize causes less software
to be created because you cannot 'mix' software this way is very
beneficial to both opponents and proponents to the GPL. Everyone knows
GPL is 'viral', even without the extreme case indicated by RIPEM. By
ensuring that commercial privateers steer WELL clear of GPL, this stance
by the FSF ensures that more software is written GPL originally. This
strengthens the GPL codebase itself. This ensures that free software
remains a separate, alternate source of software. It doesn't matter how
long commercial code wants to try to last, or what other scams are
thought up in the future, as long as the GPL codebase remains separate
and functional, we can feel secure that things will never get worse than
98/2K/XP on every desktop.
It is a pointedly and specifically defensive form of predation, let us
say.
--
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: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:22 GMT
Said Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>
>> Now that's the Roberto I remember from way back when; pigheaded and not
>> very bright.
>>
>
>You know who Roberto is and what he has written, don´t you?
Yes; I known since before I found out how truly pigheaded he can be.
>I guess you should start backpedaling from here on
Guess not. There's nothing about being pigheaded that prevents someone
from writing software.
--
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 has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:23 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 18:33:44
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >Why should Pete feel stupid?
>> >You made a statement that you can't back up because you haven't a clue
>> >concerning Direct-x.
>>
>> I use it. It sucks. 'Nuf said.
>
>Linux. I use it. It sucks. 'nuf said.
>
>There?
>
>Happy now?
Took you long enough. Du-uh!
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. I was happy when we started, son. I'm always
happy. Livin' in the now, you know what I mean? :-D
--
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 has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:24 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 18:35:52
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >I know that Direct-X works great for audio because I can use one
>> >program, say a pop and click filter, in all of my Direct-X aware
>> >programs which are all of them seamless. The plugins automagically
>> >appear as menu items and work flawlessly.
>>
>> Your perspective is naive, and your requirements are ingenuous. You can
>> dream up whatever 'because' you want to declare 'why' Directx "works
>> great"; that won't change the fact that it sucks.
>
>Yes but you're not giving any good reasons as to _why_ DirectX sucks. I
>might just as well say "Linux sucks".
Anybody who knows a thing about me (and we ain't just talking Usenet
here) knows god-damned-well *why* I would think DirectX sucks. And
believe me, your lame attempts to derail any competition to the illegal
monopoly is not anywhere as near as compelling an argument, son.
>> >You are the one who doesn't have a clue concerning Direct-X...
>>
>> I use it. It sucks. 'Nuf said.
>
>Linux. I use it. It sucks. 'nuf said.
I'm afraid you're mistaken.
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:25 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001 19:17:18
>Neil Cerutti wrote:
>
>> It has had problems with backward compatibility in the past, most
>> horribly between version 2 and 3. If your Direct X configuration
>> gets munged, it means reainstalling Windows. However, I haven't
>> had this last problem since DX6 and later versions.
>
>Thank you, someone who at least knows why DirectX sucks! Or did suck.
Does. Shuffling back and forth between old and new games that break on
different versions with a perfectly respectable video card with all new
patches on a brand new system means it *does* suck.
Happy now, Pete? Don't get comfy; it's just the tip of the iceberg,
believe me.
--
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 has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:26 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001
[...non sequitor quotes snipped...]
>Yep this is a fact. To further complicate matters some programs need
>to use a specific version of Direct-X which is not necessarily the
>same version other programs need. As an example Sonar needs v8.0a but
>the CD comes with it and it will install if you don't already have it.
>
>Another problem Direct-X has is that is very difficult if not
>impossible to back a version without re-installing the entire OS.
>There are some hacks, but the quality varies.
>
>But of course T-Max knew all of this already.....NOT.....
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
DirectX sucks; I know it and you know it. Who are you kidding?
--
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: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:27 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:
>[snip]
>> > You don't want to admit that
>> > your favorite platform- MacOS for you, isn't it?-
>> > is not up to par.
>>
>> Compared to what?
>
>Windows.
ROTFLMAO!
Not up to par compared to... 'Windows'. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
--
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: Fri, 11 May 2001 14:00:28 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 10 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001
>> [...]
>[snip]
>> >It dominates the business
>> >desktop because it's the best tool to build apps
>> >for that desktop.
>>
>> Or, more honestly, it's the best tool to build apps for that desktop,
>> because it dominates (criminally) that desktop. Nobody ever accused you
>> of being honest, though, eh, Daniel? :-*
>
>The amazing thing isn't really that you believe that.
>
>The amazing thing is that you can't wrap your
>brain around the notion of anyone disagreeing
>with you.
What in the world gave you that impression? Just because people
disagreeing with me are often in error does not mean I have any trouble
with the concept of their disagreement. Post to Usenet and believe
no-one can disagree with me? The cognitive dissonance of the very idea
makes my head hurt.
Hell, *I* disagree with me all the time! What's the problem?
>You really think that in my heart I know
>you are right, don't you?
Of course. So does everyone else; I just happen to be not only able to
admit it, but able to *explain* it as well. Ad nauseum, it appears.
>It's creepy.
You're telling me.
--
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
******************************
