Linux-Advocacy Digest #584, Volume #34 Fri, 18 May 01 01:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway. (Michael Vester)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (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: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Michael Vester)
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 04:29:24 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 17 May 2001 12:14:28
[...]
>So in essence, its not such a big deal?
>
>Only if you consider a hidden back door in every IIS server on the planet
>which gives the user the capability to steal everything off the server and
>run a muck across your intra-net no problem.
One cannot "run a muck", Charlie. ROTFLMAO!
Maybe it's the beer but that is SO funny! "Run a muck." What the hell
is a muck? ROTFL AGAIN!
--
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,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 04:29:25 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 17 May 2001 01:54:10
>In article <1wFM6.1140$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch
wrote:
>>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> In article <4AAM6.1112$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>>> >"Sean" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> >> Dear Charlie
>>> >>
>>> >> Microsoft got DoD C2 Security for Windows NT by having it
>>> >> tested *without*any*network*connections*. Yes, that's right
>>> >> it's C2 certified, but only if it's not connected to anything!
>>> >
>>> >This is no longer true, and hasn't been for a few years.
>>> >
>>> >NT4 as of SP6a is both red and orange book certified.
>>>
>>> HI crap for brains.
>>>
>>> One year ago sir you absolutely denied the existance of
>>> secret back doors in anything MS owned.
>>
>>No, I didn't. Please provide a google link showing this, or shut the fuck
>>up.
>>
>
>Yes you did. You had virtual diahrea over the notion of a secret back door.
>
>Then you ask for a LINK to prove this? From a year ago?
>On a newsgroup? KISS MY ASS JERKWAD.
>
>How fucking stupid do you think we are here?
>
>
>>> Then you spent 3-4 months arguing that a back door existed
>>> at all when it was being talked about.
>>
>>This statement doesn't parse.
>>
>
>
>This statement doesn't parse?
>Like you butt going down a set of stairs sideways?
>
>
>>> Now that MS has admitted there was an illegal back door to
>>> the system and publicized the .dll to remove, your still
>>> acting like a superior knowit-all jerk.
>>
>>No, they have not admitted this. The article was reposted from a year ago.
>>MS originally thought it might be a back door, but retracted it after
>>studying the code.
>>
>
>You are absolutely a fucking loonatic!
>
>You would have been fighting with Hitler[...]
'Nuf said.
--
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,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 04:29:26 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 16 May 2001
[...]
>Taking you at your word that you remember this, you might be thinking about
>when I asserted it would be nearly impossible for a hacker to insert a
>backdoor even if they broke into MS due to the amount of interaction that
>would need to go on to achieve this.
Yes, that and other things.
>I never said a back door was impossible from someone on the inside.
You claimed there were no back doors in MS software, and there are. 'Nuf
said.
>> Then you ask for a LINK to prove this? From a year ago?
>> On a newsgroup? KISS MY ASS JERKWAD.
>
>Don't know how to use the newsgroup search engine at google? I can pull up
>anything you've said in the last 6 years.
But can you understand what any of it MEANS, that is the question, Erik.
>> How fucking stupid do you think we are here?
>
>You? I think you are incredibly stupid. Or dishonest. I'm not sure which,
>but it's one of the two.
Must be, to think you are fucking stupid, huh?
Sock puppet.
>> >> Then you spent 3-4 months arguing that a back door existed
>> >> at all when it was being talked about.
>> >
>> >This statement doesn't parse.
>>
>> This statement doesn't parse?
>> Like you butt going down a set of stairs sideways?
>
>I rest my case.
You rest your ass. Right where it doesn't belong; on
alt.destroy.microsoft. Take your sock puppet ass elsewhere; that's all
that we're saying. :-)
>> >> Now that MS has admitted there was an illegal back door to
>> >> the system and publicized the .dll to remove, your still
>> >> acting like a superior knowit-all jerk.
>> >
>> >No, they have not admitted this. The article was reposted from a year
>ago.
>> >MS originally thought it might be a back door, but retracted it after
>> >studying the code.
>>
>> You are absolutely a fucking loonatic!
>
>That would be lunatic. And how about telling me why i'm one, in a
>comprehensible way.
That's not possible, I'm afraid. You are a lunatic, therefore you are
incomprehensible. So how are we to convince you that you are
incomprehensible, in a comprehensible way?
Sock puppet.
>> You would have been fighting with Hitler during the final days
>> armed with nothing more than a butter knife.
>>
>> You are the most pathetic loonatic I think I've ever met!
>>
>> Do you drive a car? Are you loose on America's Freeways?
>> Does the government know you exist?
>>
>> You have almost the same logic as Jeffrey Dahmer!
>>
>> Oh no honey, that's not somebody shooting at us ---
>> those are just very fast flies!!!!
>>
>> GET REAL YOU FUCKING LOONATIC!!!!
>
>Wow. Forgot to take your medication?
Sock puppet.
--
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,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 04:29:29 GMT
Said Charlie Ebert in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 17 May 2001 12:21:22
>In article <7_HM6.1166$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Erik Funkenbusch
wrote:
>>
>>Taking you at your word that you remember this, you might be thinking about
>>when I asserted it would be nearly impossible for a hacker to insert a
>>backdoor even if they broke into MS due to the amount of interaction that
>>would need to go on to achieve this.
>>
>>I never said a back door was impossible from someone on the inside.
>>
>
>Am I the only person here on COLA who when after reading statements
>like this feel this is completely un-reasonable and assinine?
When you get to the point when you ask yourself, "could anybody possibly
understand how frustrating that is," you should ask yourself, "What
Would Max Think?"
When you can't believe another human being could be so stupid, you
should ask yourself, "What Would Max Think?"
When it seems impossible to believe that another person could be so
wrong, so un-reasonable, and so assinine, I think you should ask
yourself, "What Would Max Think?"
When it appears unlikely that people would post to Usenet as a habit and
defend the actions of an illegal monopoly in whatever way their
knowledge or craftiness can come up with at the time, because they have
fiscal interests in the continuation and broadening of the monopoly, it
would make sense to ask yourself, "What does Max think?"
[Frankly, I will be pissed if none of the half dozen or so people I
expect to read this forwards it to alt.humor.best-of-usenet.]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Mandrake 8 sets the standard - for Desktop users anyway.
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 14:59:17 -0700
Brad Sims wrote:
>
> In ashen ink, the dread hand of Paul Colquhoun wrote:
>
> > |everything works out of the box.
> > |
> > |Not even Windows is this easy!
>
> Of course it all worked out of the box it's linux ( ie: not
> written by the retarded spidermonkeys on crack, that Micky$oft
> hires).
>
Linux advocates have known this for a long time.
> When I installed my SuSE 7.1 box ; it automatically set up X, my
> network card, my soundcard, and my printer.
>
Exactly the same experience I had with Suse. And you don't have to endure
the reboot everytime losedos detects yet another componenet. Try swapping
motherboards with losedos. I went through 22 reboots and 3 BSODs with NT.
Just the motherboard was changed. Same video card, network card, hard disk
controller and sound card.
> I love the extensive written documentation, and the _VAST_
> amount of helpfiles available.
>
And the huge online source and newsgoups (not this one) and local user
groups. The resources for help are far more accessable than what you can
find for losedos.
> --
> I sense much distrust in you. Distrust leads to cynicism,
> cynicism leads to bitterness, bitterness leads to the
> Awareness Of True Reality which is referred to by
> those-who-lack-enlightenment as "paranoia". I approve.
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 04:36:34 GMT
Said Matthew Gardiner in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 17 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
>> Said Charlie Ebert in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 16 May 2001 01:11:52
>> [...]
>> >At this rate, Microsoft's recommendation will be to totally disconnect
>> >all your Microsoft products from the internet as a cure-all to fix everything.
>>
>> Without a doubt. As soon as they've got enough .NET crap to keep
>> everyone nice and locked in, you can be sure that will become the
>> cure-all to everything; with .NET over MSN, why would you need the
>> Internet?
>>
>> And you'll save money, because you'll only have to pay by the bit!
>
>Whats even worse, 90% of users don't even know about it, or what it does. All
>people want is a stable [insert abstraction here...]
'Nuf said. Point made.
--
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, 18 May 2001 04:36:35 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 16 May 2001
>On Wed, 16 May 2001 20:33:36 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 16 May 2001
>> [...]
>>>Linux is NOT Unix.
>>
>>Spoken like a very dim bulb. Of course Linux is Unix. And, yes,
>>experience with Solaris and HP-UX and even AIX and other Unixen is more
>>than sufficient to ensure that an end-user is going to be comfortable
>>and efficient on a Linux desktop.
>
>So why then aren't you using it? Linux that is...
Because being Unix is not enough. Being reliable and high-performace
and industry-standard and professional-grade and commercial-quality is
not enough.
It has to be convenient, for me to pay a dime for it.
>>If you aren't a dim bulb, that is.
>
>Or a hypocrite like you are.
I haven't paid a dime for Microsoft Software since 1995. Deal with it.
--
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, 18 May 2001 04:36:36 GMT
Said Terry Porter in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 17 May 2001 00:40:15 GMT;
[...]
>GNU is not UNIX!
[...]
Did anybody miss this?
LOL!
--
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, 18 May 2001 04:36:36 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 16 May 2001
20:53:27 GMT;
>On Wed, 16 May 2001 20:33:37 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>ZZZZZZZZZ
>
>
>Great answer T-Bone......
>
>So far you have YET to
ZZZZZZZZZ
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Thu, 17 May 2001 15:04:33 -0700
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Jon Johansan wrote:
> >
> > "Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Interconnect wrote:
> > >
> > > > [HUGE SNIP]
> > > > > This is coming from a person who plays games on the server, ROFL!
> > > > >
> > > > > Matthew Gardiner
> > > >
> > > > What do you expect from a dedicated Windows *professional* :D
> > >
> > > Of course. Chad Myers is the sort of idiot who would user a server as a
> > > workstation as well. On several occasions that was he said thats what
> > > he also used the server for.
> >
> > This cracks me up coming from the linvocates who KEEP talking about linux
> > being free and saving money is so important...
> >
> > Lets park a file/print share server in the closet and let it's CPU and Mem
> > usage stay idle for years just cause a server is a server and a workstation
> > is where you run things, never the two shall meet. Sheesh... while I don't
> > see myself running many games on a server I #1) have no fear of doing it
> > cause, it's a computer, it's there to do what you want it to when you want
> > it to, it shouldn't be single tasked. #2) would do it just to piss off the
> > server elitists who'd cringe at the idea and #3) cause sometimes having a 0
> > ping kicks ass! <smile>
>
> Nothing like having Jon, Chad and Eric in the same ng.... like watching
> the three stooges in action!
> --
> V
Great comedy. The three stooges actually had talent, our 3 ng stooges
don't. I keep hoping for a losedos advocate with a bit more intelligence.
It seems that the Linux side is heavily favoured when it comes to
intelligent advocates.
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 04:41:42 GMT
Said Terry Porter in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 17 May 2001 04:16:02 GMT;
>On Thu, 17 May 2001 02:17:37 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>> On 17 May 2001 00:44:03 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
>> wrote:
>
>>>
>>>This accusation is really quite funny, coming as it does from a
>>>long term Wintroll, who's huge list of fake ID's is a record
>>>on COLA.
>>>
>>>"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
>>>S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
>>>Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> flatfish
>>>
>>
>> Typical no content, attack the messenger instead of the message
>> response from a linonut.
>
>Yep, I learnt the technique from you Flatty :)
>
>>
>> Are all of you guys cut out of the same mold or something?
>
>Umm ... why yes, Max is my clone brother, from the Linux advanced
>bot labs!
We're not supposed to tell the flatheads the Great Secret, Terry! What
is WRONG with 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]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 04:41:44 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 17 May 2001
17:02:12 GMT;
>On 17 May 2001 04:16:02 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
>wrote:
>
>
>>Umm ... why yes, Max is my clone brother, from the Linux advanced
>>bot labs!
>
>>Kind Regards
>>Terry
>
>Naahhh.
>
>You guys are the prototypes that somehow got loose from the lab.
>
>flatfish
Terrorized. That's the word you're looking for, Steve/Clair. That is
what you feel. Terrorized.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-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, 18 May 2001 04:56:58 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 16 May 2001
>It's because the software they want to run, runs on
>Windows. Only.
GOOD morning!
>Except for MS Office, which runs on Macs too. But
>that's not enough by itself, as I'm sure you realize.
>
>MS Windows won the hearts and minds of the
>developers of desktop applications.
Is that what you call criminal monopolization? 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,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 04:56:59 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 17 May 2001
14:04:08 GMT;
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > It's because the software they want to run, runs on
>> > Windows. Only.
>> >
>>
>> Because m$ stole the market.
>
>That's "earned the market". please. :D
No, fuck you, take your please and ram it up your fuck-head ass. Stole
the market. Thank you.
>> > Except for MS Office, which runs on Macs too. But
>> > that's not enough by itself, as I'm sure you realize.
>> >
>> > MS Windows won the hearts and minds of the
>> > developers of desktop applications.
>>
>> m$ didnt win ANY developer's hearts. Developers HATE micro$oft because
>> they know if they market something that catches m$'s eye, m$ will take
>> it.
>
>Not at all. Developers just keep on flocking to
>Microsoft's banner, when MS is the best solution.
When MS is the only solution which can be profitable. "Best" assumes
there are feasible alternatives. "Monopoly" assumes there is criminal
restraint of trade. Both assumptions are valid.
>Sure, they know that MS might try to buy them
>out if they are successful enough. They *like*
>that, it means MS drives up with a dump truck
>full of money.
Sock puppets aren't precisely the same as 'advocates'. Mostly because
they are dishonest.
>They also know that if for some reason MS can't
>or won't do that, they can still compete with
>Microsoft and *win*. Others have; MS doesn't
>have black magic.
Sure; there's plenty of examples of companies that competed with
Microsoft and "won". Which were they, again?
>The anti-MS zealotry you see from developers is
>pretty much the exclusive province of the he open
>source community. That is still pretty small
>potatoes, all told.
Developers have ALWAYS complained about MS's *bad engineering*. Quite
appropriate, don't you think, for *engineers*.
GUFFAW!
>> "A lot of peoplemake the analogy that competing with Bill Gates is like
>> playing hardball. I'd say it's more like knifefight" - Gary Clow
>
>I'll buy that. Nimbleness is very important when
>competing with Microsoft.
Whatever abstraction floats your 'clueless' boat, nimrod. Or should I
say "sock puppet". How do you make money, Daniel-troll?
--
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, 18 May 2001 04:57:00 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 17 May 2001
22:06:23 GMT;
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>[snip]
>> > Not at all. Developers just keep on flocking to
>> > Microsoft's banner, when MS is the best solution.
>>
>> Do they? Or do developers "flock to m$ becasue it has a monoply?
>
>If they did Microsoft would not find Java threatening,
>but they do.
>
>They are afraid they'll lose mindshare among developers;
No, they're afraid they'd lose the application barrier among consumers,
just as described by Judge Jackson. MS makes more on consumers then
they do on developers, Dan. 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,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 04:57:01 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 17 May 2001
>"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > It's because the software they want to run, runs on
>> > Windows. Only.
>> >
>> > Except for MS Office, which runs on Macs too. But
>> > that's not enough by itself, as I'm sure you realize.
>>
>> For some people this is true... for a lot of newbies, they only know
>> what is in front of them in the retail outlets. Even here there are no
>> Macs unless you go to Seattle.
>
>Well, I dunno. Macs aren't *that* invisible. More retailers
>do sell PCs, because they know that users who *do* have
>a clue will usually prefer them (or rather the applications
>that run on them); those that do not won't know the
>difference.
It's "money", not "clue" which provides the reason to buy a Mac versus a
PC. It would be wasted money, too, if not for the fact that PCs have
been monopolized for a dozen years or more. 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,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 04:57:02 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 17 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > Well, I dunno. Macs aren't *that* invisible. More retailers
>> > do sell PCs, because they know that users who *do* have
>> > a clue will usually prefer them (or rather the applications
>> > that run on them);
>>
>> Thats total bullshit. People buy Windows machines because..."everyone
>> else has them"
>
>You are very sure of that.
Indeed, he is, because it is reasonable. It is mistaken; people by
Windows machines because they are PCs, which are still cheaper than any
proprietary personal computer, by definition.
> But I don't believe it;
>I think the conventional wisdom still applies:
>it's the apps users care about.
No, if they were buying apps, they'd be buying 'apps', not a computer.
It is the computer the consumer cares about, and the commodity-level
cheapest platform they want to buy. And MS illegally monopolizes the OS
for them. Get it?
[...]
>Well, I'm a wintroll. But the users buying
>Windows computers are being completely
>rational.
As are 'wintrolls'. Most realize they shouldn't admit to it, since it
is a label for people who are dishonest, and nobody would voluntarily
accept it. But, even still, users buying Windows computers are
completely rational, and that is why monopolization is illegal, since
Windows is *obviously* not the most efficient OS in the world.
>[snip]
>> > I do know there are exceptions, but nearly all desktop
>> > app development is done on Windows these days,
>> > and it isn't because developers are idiots who can't
>> > see what's so plainly obvious to T Max Devlin. :D
>>
>> No, its because m$ stole the marketplace.
>
>Developers don't need to care much about
>that.
But you do. Why is that?
>Consider how long it took game developers
>to get with Microsoft's program. They stuck
>to DOS because they could make better games
>that way, and they knew perfectly well
>that the users would follow.
Now they call "DOS" 'DirectX'. Big deal. It sucks, either way.
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 05:02:06 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 16 May 2001 18:39:35
>Ayende Rahien wrote:
>>
>> "Peter Köhlmann" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>> > >
>> > > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > >> Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Again, Netcraft only counts host names, not servers. The same server
>> > > can
>> > >> > server 10's, 100's, even thousands of hosts.
>> > >>
>> > >> Each running its own software.
>> > >
>> > > No, it doesn't.
>> > > Get *some* clue before you post.
>> > >
>> >
>> > Yes, it does. If you want. And if itŽs a IBM/390.
>> > Get *some* clue before you post.
>>
>> No ISP will use a s/390 for this, dimwit.
>> *No one* will use it for this, for that matter. That is beyond stupid.
>
>Apparently you haven't worked for a large server farm??
>I think IBM knows what it is doing in this arena. For farms it would be
>the most logical choice and cheapest choice... along with the 35 year
>uptime guranteed by IBM.
Farm, cluster, LAN, workstation, server; it doesn't matter what you call
it. Why the fuck WOULDN'T you want the OS to be free?
--
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: Fri, 18 May 2001 05:02:07 GMT
Said Matthew Gardiner in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 17 May 2001
>> In other words, they turn their back to people who want to develop drivers
>> for Linux.
>>
>> What would happen if they tried to do this to Linux's API?
>> Who would develop to Linux then?
>>
>> You see my point?
>
>What do these hardware companies lose it they opensource their drivers?
>Nothing! create an opensource driver, merge it with the kernel, and get your
>developers to work with the kernel team to maintain it.
Precisely! You don't even have to bother writing drivers after that;
just release the hardware specs, and the open source "community" (i.e.
cluefull users) will do all the work for you!
--
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
******************************
