Linux-Advocacy Digest #632, Volume #34 Sat, 19 May 01 23:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Society")
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sun, 20 May 2001 02:28:22 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > I think you are having difficulty with the term
> > "core"; it doesn't mean "what T Max Devlin doesn't like".
> >
>
> micro$osoft's -main- business is first, its OS, then it window$ apps.
> Core doesnt mean what ever Daniel wants.
I suppose you are trying to exclude
Microsoft's Unix and Macintosh apps,
and I would too.
But I still think it's unreasonable to
dub the vast bulk of MS's product line
the core of the lineup.
[snip]
> > > No, you're making up fanciful reasons to deny that it is so firmly
> > > entrenched for quite precisely the same reasons it was made a felony
> > > more than a century ago.
> >
> > You seem very certain that no explaination but
> > black magic can account for Microsoft's
> > dominance.
> >
>
> You dont seem to coprehend the terms anti-trust or predatory. Get a
> clue. Borrow one, steal one or buy one, but get one.
Actually, it seems to me that you don't seem to
mean anything by those terms besides "black magic".
Besides, Max was saying it was a felonious
behavior that did it, and these little antitrust
things aren't felonies, and weren't a hundred
years ago either. Witchcraft on the otherhand,
is a possibility there.
[snip]
> > > >Oh, come now. That'll a sure-fire losing strategy, as
> > > >IBM discovered with OS/2 2.0.
> > >
> > > OS/2 is a product IBM continues to make millions of dollars a year on.
> >
> > IBM's OS strategy derailed because
> > OS/2 failed to attract developers. The product
> > is profitable, sure, but it can't act as
> > a bridge to the now-canceled "Workplace OS".
>
> Oh, the "failure" of OS/2 didnt have anyhting to do with micro$oft's
> FUD? Bull.
What Microsoft FUD do you have in mind?
I think the failure was that IBM sold it
to consumers as a better Windows and
a better DOS. There was no future in
doing that, ever.
Selling it to developers as a better
platform might have worked, but IBM
chose not to do that.
[snip]
> > > So why then, would it scare Microsoft so much they will do anything
they
> > > can to prevent it?
> >
> > They haven't bothered to do much of anything
> > about WINE and Open32.
> >
>
> I dont know about OS/32. WINE is pretty much useless. And, unless you
> regularly try to use it, dont try any of your m$ aplopgist crap. WINE is
> pretty much useless.
Sure is. Open32 is too, same way.
There's no *point* to developing for a portable
subset of Win32. Never was.
But that's all WINE and Open32 can
offer.
> > It's Java that scares them, and Java isn't anything
> > like a Windows-compatibility layer.
>
> Any that works scares them.
I think you are missing a noun there. Any *what*
that works? Any anything?
[snip]
> > I don't see how it explains why "buy" should have scare quotes;
>
> TRhats becasue you are not too bright. Buy imples the seller has a
> choice. When m$ tries to "buy" something, the seller rarely has a
> choice.
Oh?
What makes you think so?
I have never heard this accusation against
Microsoft before.
[snip]
> > > Sock puppets will quibble punctuation, or anything else they can come
up
> > > with, as long as it keeps the conversation away from Microsoft's
> > > continuing criminal behavior.
> >
> > Well, sometimes it's all you can profitably discuss.
> > Rick is not, um, real receptive to argument.
>
> Liar. I am receptive to facts. You ignore them or you try to change them
> to fit your reality.
I dunno. You seem quite unreceptive to the
facts of development on 8-bit PCs.
[snip]
> > VB made if very easy to build simple but
> > reasonable user interfaces. Just point and
> > click.
> >
> > Other development tools existed but they
> > were much harder to use.
> >
> > The only exception I Can think of is
> > Hypercard and its clones. They were
> > easy, but the user interfaces they provided
> > were weird and nonstandard.
>
> Weird and non-standard from YOUR point of view only.
No, not really. Ever seen what a Hypercard
stack looks like?
[snip]
> More context losing snips.
I buy them in bulk. :D
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Society" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Society" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 19:39:17 -0700
"You've got MALE.. sex organs!" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Kulkis is an idiot.
>
> But then I repeat myself.
You all do realize that Aaron Kulkis is an operative
whose mission is to lure you into wasting your time
instead of doing anything that might challenge the
"Windows domination of the desktop", don't you?
Or maybe you don't. Ha, ha.
And all your wasted time is keeping you out
of circulation with the good lookers, too.
--
Too many Americans can't laugh at themselves anymore.
#35 in Rush Limbaugh's "35 Undeniable Truths"
------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Sat, 19 May 2001 22:51:47 +0000
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Mart van de
Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You could look at it this way of course: if radio waves(==light) travel
> at .88c in an atmosphere, then they will travel at .88c in space as
> well, as there is no acceleration (of course assuming the radio waves
> originate from a planetary surface). I am applying simple Newtonian
> physics here, and I have a feeling that this would not be exactly right,
> but it sounds deceptively logical to me.
Yep, deceptively logical. Of course, it is also deceptively logical,
using Newtonian physics, that If you shine a flashlight in front of you
and travel at near the speed of light that the light from the flashlight
will travel at 2xc. But experiment shows otherwise. Which is what
caused the upheaval in physics near the turn of the 20th century and led
to the theory of relativity.
Gary
------------------------------
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: Sun, 20 May 2001 02:57:55 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > ... they use what everyone else uses.
> >
> > ... and for a reason. It's the reason that matters,
> > but you seem averse to discussing it.
> >
> > Why is that?
>
> Why do people get window$, dolt? Becasue everybody else uses it.
No, because it will run their apps.
[snip]
> > > You profess to be such an expert on things and you dont even know the
> > > TRS 80 model numbers? I, II, III, 4, 4P
> >
> > Those guys weren't CP/M machines. They
> > had a thing called TRS-DOS, I believe.
>
> Tehy did run TRS-DOS, AND CP/M
<shrug>So did Apple IIs, with the appropriate
upgrade.
> > They were kinda weak even for 8-bit computers;
> > they certainly were not better than IBM PCs.
>
> Weak??? AHahahhahhha ahahahahhahah. Were you even alive then?
Yes. TRS-80s had the usuasl limitations for
8-bit computers, but unusually poor graphics
support- really pretty much nonexistant actually.
This put a big kink in game support for the
computer, and games were really big on PCs
back then. Even moreso than now.
[snip]
> > I really can't, not without more than what
> > you've given me.
> >
>
> It's easy. Google, trs, model I, II, III, I4, 4, 4p... you can do it,
> you're just too lazy, or scared.
I tried those search items just now. Didn't see
any review. Lots of nostalgia pages though.
Am I supposed to search each?
[snip]
> > Oh.
> >
> > Sure, they probably thought that if he hadn't
> > patented something in CP/M, we surely could.
> >
> > MS-DOS and CP/M were just awful close.
> > Same problem with Windows NT and VMS.
>
> Not awlful close. MS-DOS had CP/M code in it. Code written, if not by
> Killdal himself, at least by Digital Research.
Where'd they get it from, then?
[snip]
> > The 68000 could access 16 megs, not 1. That was
> > par for the course for 16 bit CPUs of that era.
> >
> > What was unusal was that it did it with
> > no segments.
> >
> > The reason early Macs had so much less
> > memory was that it was expensive back
> > then.
>
> Define early Macs.
The first Macintoshes were
the original 128k Macintosh,
and then a later 512k Macintosh.
*Then* you get the Macintosh Plus,
which supports up to 4 megs if you
can afford it.
[snip]
> > > Hmmm. IIRC, Appleworks was commissioned. The Apple II also had
> > > AppleWriter, which was a programable word processor.
> >
> > The very first on a PC, as I recall. Very primitive stuff,
> > but groundbreaking in concept.
>
> Primitive? Sheesh. Primitive by "todays standards.. maybe.
Well, it was very different from the stuff
that you could get for timesharing systems.
> > How was it "programmable"? I didn't think it had
> > a macro system.
>
> You didnt think? We know that. Now, be a good litte chap and run off a
> learn about AppleWriter's glossary.
I can find some references, but no details. You know
a good website on this?
[snip]
> > > Rupert Lissner wrote it. Apple marketed it,
> >
> > Put some new life in the Apple II, it did, but
> > that kind of thing is the exception, not the rule.
>
> It was the best sell software fir years.
Hmmm?
It may have been the best selling Apple II
software, but that didn't amount to all
that much for long.
> > Even then it was limited by the Apple II's
> > capabilities.
>
> What were the limitations, given its timeframe?
It's limitations are not dependant on its
timeframe. The biggest one for an integrated
package is the problematic graphics support.
[snip]
> > No, compared to *real* computers. Even compared to
> > little ones like PDP-11s. Compared to a System 360s,
> > PCs were jokes.
>
> Well then EVERY "personal computer" was a joke, even your precious
> little IBM PC.
Well, I dunno about that. The IBM PC was no 360, but at
least you could put a compiler on the fool thing.
> It was the biggest joke of all. AAnd we are talking about
> "personal computers" here, ot mainframes and mini's. You just cant stay
> in one place can you. You present too much of a target.
The inadequacies of early 8-bit PCs do not go
away just because you don't want to compare them
with better computers.
> > The PCs got better. The introduction of the IBM PC
> > was a big step in the right direction.
>
> The Apple IIs got better.
Yes. But the introduciton of the 16-bit
Apple IIgs was too late to prevent what
was by then the inevitable.
> > I'm not moving the goalposts. I'm telling you that
> > the problems faced by programmers were
> > recognizable even at the time.
>
> You keep dropping in developers. I dont give a rats ass about
> developers. leave them out of the conversation.
I, on the other hand, do give a rats ass about
developers, and I think you *should*, since
they are crucial to understand how the
industry has developed.
Nobody bought an IBM PC to run COMMAND.COM,
but they bought them to run Lotus 1-2-3.
[snip]
> > > It was NOT awlful. It addressed over 1 meg of ram. It had integrated
WP,
> > > SS and DB.
> >
> > It certainly did not *address* 1 meg of anything; the 6502
> > had an address space of 64k, period. It used bank switching
> > to get beyond that.
>
> I had a 1024k desktop. I dont care how it got there. I had it. At the
> time I had it, the PC didnt.
PC's could have that much memory, or more, by 1987.
Even 8086s could. 80286s could access 24 megs of
memory directly, as is typical for 16-bit CPUs.
And the 386 was released in '87 wasn't it?
> > AppleWorks is a neat product, but it's not really a
> > first class anything. That's the problem integrated
> > suites always have.
>
> Then why was it the best sellin pice of software, for years... without
> advertising?
Apple didn't advertise it? You sure about that?
> > But then, AppleWorks wasn't terribly integrated.
> > The modules didn't work together very much.
>
> No, you could only put spreadsheets and database reports in WP
> documents.
You could put "database reports" in WP documents?
I think you are talking about mail-merge and
have dressed it up as "reports".
[snip]
> > You said 1987. In 1987 the Mac was well
> > established.
> >
> > In 1984 the Mac existed and could do things
> > AppleWorks could not, already.
>
> The Mac did not have software that worked together like Appleworks. No
> computer did. Prove ptherwise. Give an example.
Certainly they did not. Only an 8-bit computer
would benefit from *that*.
The 16 bit computer could *multitask*,
and that gave you everything AppleWorks
did and much more.
Later integrated products had to offer much
tighter integration than AppleWorks did
to compete.
[snip]
> > > So what? there is nothing wrond with flat file DBs if you dont need
> > > realtional tables.
> >
> > It's weak. It's like an address book.
>
> So WHAT???? Thats all many people need.
So, you can do much more on better
platforms.
[snip]
> > I know you could do mail merge. I doubt
> > it could do reports, but if you say so.
>
> YOU doubt. YOU??? I thought you knew it all. It could do mail merges. It
> wa an integrated program, dolt.
It wasn't all that integrated, really.
[snip]
> > > > It had no graphics module at all.
> > >
> > > IIRC, third party ADD-on.
> >
> > Oh? What was it called? I may
> > look it up.
>
> Really? That will be a first for you.
Yep. :D You so rarely give me enough
information to verify your claims.
> > Apple IIs had really seirous issues
> > with supporting graphics. The
> > display hardware was not much,
> > not even compared to other 8 bit
> > computers.
>
> HAhahahhahahah. The graphics capabilities of the Apple IIs were called
> works of art by engineers of the day.
They were *cheap*; they were implemented more
cheaply than anyone else. They got to market
first.
But by 1981, they were obsolete and feeble
even by the standards of 8-bit computers.
[snip]
> > > What "better" computers?
> >
> > Macs. PCs. Amigas.
>
> PCs? Crap.
In 1981 they were the best thing going.
> The Mac took a LONG time to establish itself. What was the
> integrated software for the Amiga called?
The Amiga had quite impressive multitasking
from day one, and didn't need "integrated"
packages like AppleWorks at all.
[snip]
> > > Apples/oranges... goal posts moving.
> >
> > No, really ClarisWorks is a integrated
> > package that fills a market nice very
> > similar to that of AppleWorks; a lightway
> > productivity suite that is very easy to
> > use.
>
> That came out YEARS after Appleworks. How can uyou compare the 2?
Well, I'm pointing out that the new 16-bit
platforms made better applications possible
than had been possible before. ClarisWorks
is an example.
> > ClarisWorks is *much* better at it.
>
> Because it came out YEARS after Appleworks.
Programmers didn't become smarter in the
intervening years. The platforms got better.
[snip]
> > > Except I WAS running Appleworks with 1 meg of RAM and almost all of it
> > > was accessible to Appleworks. And the IIRC, there was a utility to
allow
> > > other apps to accesss the bank switched memory. Pinpoint?
> >
> > There is no way to make apps use back-switched
> > memory unless they already know how, not at the
> > Apple II with its rigid address space map.
>
> Appleworks did it.
Certainly not. You don't appear to even
understand what you yourself are saying.
> > Other apps did use it, but it wasn't common.
>
> OK.. just how uncommon was it?
Quite uncommon. :D
[snip]
> > > Pascal wasnt used much? For the Apple II? HAhahahahhahahah...
> > > You+credibility=0
> >
> > Well, it was good for playing around, and
> > there was a famous game written using it-
> > the original Wizardy.
> >
> > But it was *visibly* slowed by using
>
> It was *visibly* slowed.. compared to what? How could you compare? What
> action was there in Wizardry?
Compare to later products on the same hardware;
products written in assembly.
> ... and are those "scare" asterisks?
No, they are emphasis asterisks..
> > Pascal. Other similar games came after
> > that were dramatically faster and better
> > looking- and they used assembly to do it.
> >
>
> "... Other similar games came after that were dramatically faster and
> better"
>
> You keep comparing what came AFTER. AFTER. Thats like saying the V1 was
> shit because the Saturn 4 was so much better. You cant compare the 2.
Sure I can. And the V1 *was* shit, it was totally ineffective
and a waste of resources. :D
But more to the point, the programmers who saw
Wizardry learned from it; they learned not to use
Pascal.
[snip]
> > When did that last happen? :D
>
> Look... its the grinning moron again.
<looks around>
Where?
------------------------------
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: Sun, 20 May 2001 03:00:32 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > I see no grammar mistake here. Rick seems to
> > feel that Microsoft has founded a monopoly,
> > so that they can, er, have a monopoly.
>
> Tell it to the FTC, the EU, the DOJ, the several States Attorneys
> General and the several companies that have filed suit.
But they didn't say it. Those guys seem to feel that
Microsoft founded a monopoly in order to raise
prices.
[snip]
> > I do not give your legal weight much credit, but I find
> > your reasoning here quite provocative.
> >
> > You seem to understand that end-users are not
> > idiots; why do you think they react to this
> > "monopolization" by all buying Microsoft?
>
> Becasue thats what there?
It's not the only thing there.
[snip]
> > We haven't really tried to argue about that yet; I
> > suspect we can't do so until you tell us all what
> > you mean by "unreasonable restraint of trade".
>
> Its been explained to you countless times using direct quotes and
> internal email and memos. You choose to ignore the explanation.
I certainly would miss it, were it somehow
encoded into internal emails and memos from
somewhere. What a breathtakingly weird way
to explain what "unreasonable restraint of trade"
is.
[snip]
------------------------------
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: Sun, 20 May 2001 03:02:22 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > I think you should stop flinging gratuitous insults
> > when you lose arguments, Max. That question
> > wasn't even for you; I know you don't agree
> > with Rick on this point, and I wouldn't
> > expect you to defend him here.
>
> Just what argument did Max lose?
He seem to have given up trying to defend
the notion that Windows is inferior for now.
I think he lost that one.
> It looks to me like he calling you on
> an honesty issue.
Maybe. I don't yet know what "dishonesty" means
in Max-speak very clearly. I know it doesn't
have anything much to do with, say, lying,
but that's all.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
