Linux-Advocacy Digest #595, Volume #34 Fri, 18 May 01 13:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Sea Change (Mike Martinet)
Re: Beos vs Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum: (Dave Martel)
Re: OT Movies (Dave Martel)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (Donn Miller)
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! ("Edward Rosten")
Re: Beos vs Linux ("Edward Rosten")
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! (Michael Marion)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:43:37 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > If they did Microsoft would not find Java threatening,
> > but they do.
>
> micro$oft (read Gates) finds EVERYTHING threatening. They (it?) is
> paranoid. Well, maybe not. Ther ARE people out to get it (him?), but for
> good reason.
No, they seem threats to their core business as, er,
threatening.
It's remarkable that Microsoft would, for instance,
put OLE into the OS for anyone to use rather
than making it an Office specific feature. They didn't
see WordPerfect or Lotus as a threat; their core
business isn't office suites. It's development tools.
> > They are afraid they'll lose mindshare among developers;
> > and they should be. Java has been making inroads,
> > "monopoly" or not.
>
> Inroads. Yeah. Uh-huh.
Yeah. Very definitely.
This .NET thing is not just some spasm; Microsoft
has been losing developers to Sun. They want them
back.
*This* is the real threat to Microsoft's buisness
model. As long as they have the developers, Windows
cannot fail, and that gives Microsoft great influence.
But if they lose the developers, then Windows
is at *most* a bunch of (no doubt very stable :D )
device drivers.
[snip]
> > > If m$ takes aim at a company, it will buy, lie, cheat steal, anything
at
> > > all to gain marketshare, as has been demonstrated (and ignored by
you).
> >
> > The easy way is just to buy out the little beggars.
> >
> > And they do do that.
> >
>
> And if they cant "buy" them or get them to "license" their p[roducts to
> m$ at a rediculous price, m$ kills them.
I don't know why you put the scare quotes around "buy"
there; they very definitely do buy out their competitors
sometimes.
You may not like it, but you aren't the one getting all
that money.
MS also has been known to compete straight out,
and sometimes they win. But sometimes they lose;
and developers know this.
[snip]
> > That's just your way of saying you don't like
> > Microsoft.
>
> DONT freaking tell me what I think. You dont have a damn clue.
It's not exactly a secret, Rick.
> > But it's still true that companies have
> > been able to successfully compete with Microsoft
> > in the past, even so.
>
> Name 5.
Intuit.
MS seems to have given up on this one. This
is the most clear cut example you could ask
for.
AOL.
Even the supposedly all-powerful trick
of putting an MSN icon on the desktop
couldn't unseat AOL. Not that we aren't
all rooting for MS on this one. :D
Oracle.
MS is having real trouble getting database
customers to believe in SQL Server. But
they keep on plugging.
IBM.
Notes remains *the* groupware product;
Exchange may have a user interface that
doesn't make you want to kill yourself
quite as violently as Notes does, but it
just isn't customisable in the same way.
Apple.
However I may personally feel about it,
Quicktime remains very popular as a
media distribution format. I dunno if its
the Sorenson codec or the API or
what.
[snip]
> > > Tell that to Digital research, Go, Stack, Vobis, IBM, Lotus, etc, etc,
> > > etc.
> >
> > You mean their *lawyers*, I think.
>
> Damn. DONT tell me whjat I think. I said .."Tell that to Digital
> research, Go, Stack, Vobis, IBM, Lotus, etc, etc," and thats what I
> meant.
Well, okay, you *should* have meant their lawyers. And
in some cases not even that; Digital Research didn't
sue; Caldera did.
> > Not developers.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> here we go with the snips that will ultimately lose context again.
Very true.
[snip]
> > Knife-fights don't involve a lot of stabbing the back,
> > unless one participant is a whole lot slower and clumsier
> > than the other.
> >
> > Which has been known to happen. But not much.
>
> Tell that to Go Computing. Tehy were nimble. And micros$oft knofed them
> in the back. Dame with Stac.
No; Go Computing wasn't nimble. Not as nimble as MS,
anyway, which was able to put together a credible
pen-computing platform in a very big hurry.
Stac was plenty nimble. They out-nimbled Microsoft
and bought the better patent. I may not approve
of nimbleness-by-lawyer, but it should be acknowledged.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:43:39 GMT
"Chris Lee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9e22cu$lpq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <sTQM6.27495$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > 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.
>
> Yeah . That's why you and so many Microsoft .net lapdogs are so eager try
> and sucker the open source community in supporting C# and the rest of
> Microsoft's crap. To bad for the most part it isn't really working.
I think its plainly obvious that .NET is intented to woo the
*Java* crowd. It's practically a Java clone.
It's not about the open source crowd.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:43:40 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 17 May 2001
> 14:04:08 GMT;
> >> 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.
Now, now. No need to be uncivilized.
[snip]
> >> 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.
Hmm. I'm surprised to hear you admit that there
are feasible alternatives. It smacks of, you know,
competition.
> >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.
And the dump trucks full of money we get
are of the "Tonka" variety. :D
> >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?
I gave Rick a list. You can argue with that one.
> >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!
Well, yes. MS has always had the habit of
releasing very poor stuff on its first release
of anything, and working from there.
This has, shall we say, not escaped the
notice of developers.
For developers, the trick is to wait until
MS gets it right. :D
[snip]
> >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?
I make it by the dump-truck full! :D
------------------------------
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: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:43:40 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >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!
Weeeeeell...
Jackson seems to think that the "application barrier"
is a matter of compatibility; if that were true it would
have fallen long ago. Products like WINE and Open32
would be the threat. Java would of course be
no threat, since Win32 apps can't run on Java.
But of course that's not the way it is. The real barrier
is the quality and diversity of the tools MS provides
for developers. It's not enough to be compatible,
you've got the beat the functionality, and that's
rather hard.
That's what Java was so threatening. It did
some things better than Win32 could do them,
and there were things it did that Win32 could
not do *at all*.
It had not a shred of compatibility; it took
off anyone. It overcame the barrier that
mattered, not the one in the mind of that
judge.
------------------------------
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: Fri, 18 May 2001 15:43:41 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> >> 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.
I dunno. Seems like he's insulting the
intelligence of, well, practically everyone.
> It is mistaken; people by
> Windows machines because they are PCs, which are still cheaper than any
> proprietary personal computer, by definition.
By "definition"?
I'm a glutton for punishment. Give me this
definition of yours.
> > 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.
They *are* buying apps. In cardboard boxes, even.
Doesn't do them any good unless they have a computer
than can run them though.
So they buy that too.
Nobody buys Windows to play Solitare, you know.
> 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?
I know what you are saying; but you are mistaken. You've
put the cart before the horse.
[snip]
> >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.
Apparently I do not realize I should not admit it, since
I just called myself a Wintroll.
I don't see that Wintrolls must be dishonest to
ply their trade. Annoying, yeah, but that's something
else. :D
> 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.
It is the *best* OS for the desktop. Efficiency just
isn't that important in a world where Moore's law
continues to apply. It's the developer toolset that
counts.
[snip]
> >> No, its because m$ stole the marketplace.
> >
> >Developers don't need to care much about
> >that.
>
> But you do. Why is that?
I'm a Wintroll. :D
> >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.
<boggle>
C'mon, Max, even you aren't *that* ignorant. DirectX
is many things, but it is not DOS.
DirectX's importance is that it permitted developers
to build better games than they could on DOS; once
that became true, developers switched to Windows.
------------------------------
From: Mike Martinet <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Sea Change
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 08:52:00 -0700
Interconnect wrote:
>
> If it *works* for you fine, my guess is...
>
> You like Napster and MSmedia Player. i.e Things that make your machine *RUN*
I like Gnotella, Winamp and Cool Edit.
>
> Your e-mail consumes 4hours plus a day, of trivial text messages and video
> snippets that MS Windows runs perfectly.
The only video I can get to run on Win95 is mpg. Oh, and some Real
stuff works.
>
> CLI is evil.
CLI is for people who like computers. It doesn't hurt to be able to
touch-type, either.
>
> You wait for the day for MS Visual Studio lets you write efficient programs
> with a simple Wizard.
I'm waiting for the day when MS Visual Studio has a drag-and-drop
alphabet bar so all the mousers won't have to touch the ugly keyboard
anymore.
MjM
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: Beos vs Linux
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:13:12 +0100
>>as root. Or when the LILO: prompt comes up type append="mem=192M" (IIRC)
>
> I'm not using lilo from the MBR as my linux loader. I launch it from
> the win9x startup menu to load the linuz image. I'll see if I can get
> it working in my setup...
You're probably using loadlin then. I don't know how it works. Have you
tried asking your local LUG or c.o.l.setup?
>>> I started off using netscape 4.7 for browsing but it is really just a
>>> pile of pants. Uses up loads of memory, takes ages to launch, as soon
>>> as I have used it for about 10 minutes and have over about 6 windows
>>> it grinds to a halt and I have to kill it.
>>
>>It can be a pain, but its OK most of the time I find.
>
> I hate it with a vengeance. Just as I have got all the web pages I want
> to read off-line Netscape hangs and I can't see any of them
Fair enough. Mozzie is looking promising now, though. It's actually
getting to be pretty good.
>>> I don't have gnome wm, but tried mwm, fvwm, fvwm2, afterstep and
>>> icewm.
>>> Of all these I find icewm nicest with the launcher/task bar.
>>
>>Ha! You renounce the One True Window Manager? (fvwm2)
>
> Well call me a windows softy but I like to have a task bar & launcher.
> The standard dock in fvwm2 didn't have as much stuff as I liked and I
> didn't want to be bothered with configuring it at first.
Fair enough. Though FVWM2 has a windows95 theme, complete with taskbar
and all. I also hacked up a Win98 theme complete with gradient title
bars and start menu. It also changed the top left buttons for
maximized/non maximized menus.
>>It may suprise you to know that not everyone has an applications menu,
>>and some of us wouldn't want one forced on us.
> Yeah sure each to their own. But even fvwm, twm, openlook have
> applications menus that come down with a mouse button on the desktop
> (LMB by default I think).
Yep, but FVWM2 is very configurable, and I removed it. All it has is
some modules and a list of window-operations. I put an xterm in the dock
bar instead.
>>But I take your point. It is possible with the aid of scripts to have
>>one menu that gets applied to all the window managers, but no one seems
>>to have done it well yet.
>
> Yes this is all I meant: portability of menus between window managers if
> you like to have them. I was half expecting someone to reply to my post
> with "don't you know gnokmenuman does this" or something & am surprised
> it doesn't exist already. I'd give it a go myself if I had the time. I
> guess people just use their fave WM and don't swap WMs every week.
I think that's the thing. There is little incentive unless you swap a
lot.
-ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:20:21 +0100
>> > Ah, I can go into my local PC world and buy one of these
>> > supercomputers can I? It's an off the shelf easily affordable
>> > machine, is that so?
>>
>> Don't be such a twit. Firstly is a real computer being used for a real
>> purpose, by real people (as opposed to something used just for
>> benchmarks) in the real world or not?
>
> Don't be such a twit yourself.
>
>> Can I go down to the local marina and buy a supertanker? Is is an
>> easily affordable, off the shelf ship? No its not, so i guess
>> supertankers don't exist in the real world.
>
> Now you're being ridiculous.
>
>> What about helicopters? Can't afford one or get one easily? They don't
>> exist either. Same goes for satelites. And open cast mining equipment.
>> None of it exists in the real world because you can't afford it.
>
> ...even more so.
>
>> Oh, and Boeing 747's don't exist either. Remember that when you next go
>> on holiday. Oh and in case you go by ferry or train, those don't exist
>> either because you can't afford the.
>
> ...yet more.
Uh, yeah. I was turning your point of view to some things you're able to
understand. Now you see how stupid it is.
>> > Your definition of "real world" is fascinating. Out here in the
>> > _real_
>> > real world, it's Windows that is dominating, not Linux.
>>
>> I was talking about scalibility, and price/performance. Which one wins?
>
> Who cares if it wins in this very small slice of the market! Linux is
> losing _big time_ in the _dominant_ market!
Reread the post. I was talking about price/preformance and scalibility,
after a wave of trolling about TPC. Tell me exactly where Linux is losing.
>> Besides, don't forget that your segment of the real world is the *only*
>> one.
>
> True. However it's a lot _bigger_ than the slice you're looking at.
So tell me where Linux has less price/performancd and scalibility than
Win2K.
>> > In one small percentage of the whole market. Not enough.
>>
>> I was illustrating that in the *real* world as opposed to wired
>> benchmarks, linux thrashes Win2K in terms of scalibility and
>> price/performance.
>
> You emphasis on *real* makes me suspect your definition of reality.
So tell me where Linux has less price/performancd and scalibility than
Win2K.
>> Are you going to deny that a supercomputer is a prefectly real world
>> example of huge scalibility?
>
> I never said it wasn't. You made those stupid and ridiculous statements
> earlier, not me.
So tell me where Linux has less price/performancd and scalibility than
Win2K.
>> Oh and before I forget, yes, you can go down to the local shop and buy
>> one of these computers, only it won't have many nodes, that's all.
>
> Must be one hell of a shop!
Well, since these computers are made of commodity hardware, any shop will
do, if you're happy to settle for a couple of nodes only.
Now, I have a big bone to pick with you. I was posting about
price/preformance and scalibility and you blather on about market share to
prove what? Nowhere did you address any of the points I made, save from
making the statement that supercomputers are not an example of real world
scalibility because you can't buy one in youre local shop.
I think you are either unable to read or trolling.
-Ed
Oh, by the way, you can't buy a 16 processor Xeon machine in your local
shop, so I guess that wraps it up for Win2K's scalibility too.
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:21:11 +0100
>> Chad, Jan, Ubertroll, Todd, etc, what do you have to say to this:
>>
>> In the real world (ie not benchmarks) Linux is near the top in terms of
>> price/performance and scalibility. Win2K doesn't put in a single
>> showing.
>
> And in the *real* world of desktops, where is Linux, pray tell?
And in the *real* world of scalibility and price/performance, where is
Winows, pray tell?
> Absolutely... nowhere?
Absolutely... nowhere?
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Rather humorous posting on news.com commentry forum:
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:09:45 -0600
On Fri, 18 May 2001 14:06:20 +0100, Pete Goodwin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> What is keeping Linux off the desktop is ignorance and arrogance rolled up
>> into a little ball called, "Linux is too hard!" + "Why should I learn how
>> to use it?". You hear users bitch and moan, but when a replacement comes
>> along, they make excuses, even though all they do it write a letter to Aunt
>> Dolly and email some crap to work. Something Linux is more than capable of
>> doing.
>
>Which is precisely what is _not_ keeping Linux off the desktop. The
>reason why Windows is winning is because of the willingness to try to
>make it easier (unlike Linux) and the fact that there are far more
>_usable_ (though not free) apps for Windows than there are for Linux.
It would appear that you've never sat down next to an auto mechanic or
a grey-haired granny while they tried to install Windows themselves
(why do you think MS wants it to come pre-installed?) or tried to
teach them how to chase down registry corruption after one too many
application installations.
I also disagree with the rest of the user-bashing parts of this
thread. If Joe Sixpack buys a computer to surf the web or manage his
home-business, then he wants to spend his time surfing the web and
managing his records - not wading through a stack of computer manuals.
Computers are supposed to make life easier and the use of one's time
more efficient. Instead for many nontechnical people they've become
just another burden. Don't blame Joe Sixpack for getting frustrated
and tossing his computer in the closet. The failure belongs to the
designers who failed to take into account the needs and psychology of
their end-users.
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: OT Movies
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 10:25:52 -0600
On Tue, 15 May 2001 01:56:44 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Dave Martel wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 14 May 2001 00:09:08 +0100, Nigel Feltham
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >> Well that's nice that you work in such lovely datacenters but surely you
>> >> agree that movies *never* capture the real appeal of technical work (for
>> >> instance the complexity mentioned by the original poster).
>> >>
>> >
>> >My favourite is the scene in Jurassic park where the kids instantly
>> >recognise the unix system and know how to reboot it ( but obviously not how
>> >to just restart the electric fence control deamon).
>> >
>>
>> I always liked the old SeaView series about an atomic submarine. The
>> computer was one big wall of flashing lights from which the computer
>> guy could deduce the most detailed of information. (Quick glance at
>> wall of randomly flashing lights, then "Sir, there's a monster squid
>> headed our way. It weighs 25,000 pounds and is coming from 127.2
>> degrees. It's 35 nautical miles out, and will be here in 2 minutes".)
>>
>> Then when the giant squid attacked the submarine, the computer would
>> first shower the crew with high-voltage sparks and then explode
>> spectacularly. 15 minutes later Damage Control would have it fixed.
>>
>> The next week it would explode again. And the next, and the next...
>
>Hehehe... or the painted plywood that was supposed to be the bulkheads.
How about all those old B-grade sci-fi movies where the military was
called out to fight off giant insects which of course proved
impervious to bombs and artillery shells - yet, it NEVER occurred to
anyone to try bug spray!
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 12:41:26 -0400
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Pete Goodwin wrote:
> And in the *real* world of desktops, where is Linux, pray tell?
>
> Absolutely... nowhere?
For many people, Linux is more than good enough of a desktop system. If
it doesn't please you, then just run Windows.
So, what exactly is a "good enough desktop system" by your standards?
Obviously, for you it means something that looks and acts exactly like
Windows.
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:45:32 +0100
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "chrisv"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote:
>
>>Yeah, Intel doesn't make a RISC processor. They think RISC stinks.
>>
>>Nice try EF. Thanks for playing.
>
> Does not Intel own and manufacture the ARM processor?
They own the company that makes ARM. The people employed to make the ARM
are not directly employed by intel.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.be.advocacy
Subject: Re: Beos vs Linux
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 18:49:31 +0100
>> It may suprise you to know that not everyone has an applications menu,
>> and some of us wouldn't want one forced on us. But I take your point.
>> It is possible with the aid of scripts to have one menu that gets
>> applied to all the window managers, but no one seems to have done it
>> well yet.
>>
>
> Debian does a pretty good job at this -- I've installed blackbox, icewm,
> and fvwm2, and the menus are all synch'd pretty well. (The cool thing
> is that when I apt-get a new program, Debian automagically adds it to
> my wm menus!)
RedHat did something like that, but only dor installing apps. When it
came to customizing the menus, there was no such help.
-Ed
--
(You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
/d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s{15
}d f/t{240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage}d pop t
------------------------------
From: Michael Marion <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Date: Fri, 18 May 2001 16:59:39 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> If you mean about October of last year you'd be on the mark.
Charlie.. get it through you thick skull: HPs that you can buy today, and that
have been sold since last Oct, are still using PA-RISC.. they are NOT using
IA-64 yet. IA64 isn't even out yet.
--
Mike Marion-Unix SysAdmin/Senior Engineer-Qualcomm-http://www.miguelito.org
It took the power of 3 Commodore 64's to go to the moon, but it takes a
486 to run Windows... Something is desperately wrong here. - Stolen from /.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
