Linux-Advocacy Digest #696, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 14:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Intermediate user who left Windows for Linux ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Win2000 SP2 breaks Samba 2.2 PDC? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Ayende Rahien")
Linux dead on the desktop. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Windows beats Linux anyday!!! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Intermediate user who left Windows for Linux ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Intermediate user who left Windows for Linux (.)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Chad Myers")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:59:31 GMT
Said Eric Remy in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 16:46:05
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Said Eric Remy in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 09:37:50
>>>In article
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>>GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> > The speed of light has never been measured in a vacuum!
>>>>>
>>>>> It has. You can also calculate the speed of light without measuring it
>>>>> directly.
>>>>
>>>>Ah, but there is the rub... All light speed measurements have so far
>>>>been done in AIR!
>>>
>>>So I supposed that air extends all the way out to the Pioneer spacecraft?
>>>
>>>GreyCloud, you're wrong. Completely. The speed of light in vacuum is
>>>known to tremendous precision. If it wasn't, NASA wouldn't be able to
>>>track spacecraft light hours away nor use radio ranging systems to
>>>measure distances.
>>
>>I just love this shit. "GreyCloud, you are wrong; completely."
>
>Well, let's see. In the post I'm replying to, GreyCloud claims all
>measurements of c have been done in air.
>
>Statement truth: dead wrong.
You wish. It might even be so. But you've provided no more proof than
he has.
>>GreyCloud didn't say a damn thing about whether the speed of light in
>>vacuum is _known_ to any arbitrary precision. He pointed out that it is
>>not *experimentally proven*, and in fact cannot be, since in order to
>>measure light's speed, you must change its velocity, according to
>>Heisenburg.
>
>You're very confused here.
This means, translated to a modest and accurate statement, that you are
slightly mistaken and rather confused, here.
>First, Greycloud claims radio waves travel at 0.88c. This is
>experimentally proven wrong *every* *single* *day*. It's true for
>certain media, certainly, but has nothing at all to do with c.
My, oh my. Can I even hope to sort out such an ugly, useless mass of
pointless, conflicted rhetoric?
Actually, I think not.
>Second, the HUP has nothing at all to do with the value of c. c is a
>fundamental physical constant. We know it to very high precision, and
>the HUP has *no* effect on this.
Indeed; to claim that we know it to a very high precision, and yet the
HUP has no effect on this, is to claim that we know how to add two and
two together, and the fact that we breath air has no effect on this.
Save for the obvious fact that if the second were not true, the first
would not be, either. We would know (with *perfect* precision, no less,
and perfect accuracy, as well) what c is, if not for the unfortunate
fact that all measurements, true to Heisenburg's principle, are
uncertain.
>>I think the problem GreyCloud is having making himself comprehensible
>>(hence, Eric's difficulty in providing any reasoning to counter it,
>>resorting to the asinine 'you are completely wrong' bullshit) is
>>confusion over the distinction between the terms "quantum packet of
>>energy" and "particle [of light]", which is subtle but does exist. Both
>>qualify for the word "photon", but the math you use must be distinct.
>
>And how does this deal with Greycloud's "Radio waves are not light" and
>"Radio waves travel at .88c" crap?
Waves don't 'travel'; that's the way I explain it. They propagate.
Likewise, photons don't "travel", either. They stand still in time, and
the rest of the universe moves relative to them. If you weren't aware
that different frequencies of electromagnetic radiation travel or
propagate at different velocities or speeds, AND that light is both wave
and particle, then you haven't paid the ticket price to enter this
discussion. That is our starting point; it may be hubris to believe our
destination terminus will be any different, but it is the premise of
discussion.
>Max, you're looking for something here that just doesn't exist.
>Greycloud doesn't understand what he's talking about.
The stupidity of such a statement knows no bounds. Of course he
understands what he's talking about. YOU don't understand what he's
talking about. I am unsure what he is talking about; I know damn well
he understands it, though, and so as he understand it he is either
mistaken or correct; it is not possible for him to either be wrong, or
to be unreasonable, unless he does what you've done and given up on
being reasonable. Which of us do you expect is going to have any chance
of learning anything and avoiding providing the appearance of a fool,
whether he does or not: you, or me?
>>GreyCloud's 'quantum packet' speeds up and slows down around matter, and
>>does not achieve full c except in a perfect vacuum and taking Hiesenburg
>>into account using statistics (requiring the counter-intuitive reading
>>in certain trials of photons traveling at greater than c, proving even
>>that a gedanken experiment, not an empirical one). But the photon
>>always travels at c in all mediums; it is only the repetitive absorbtion
>>and later emitting of photons by atoms of matter that seem to "slow them
>>down" in a medium.
>
>I'm well aware of this. Greycloud is still wrong. He's not even
>operating on this level: he totally misunderstands what radio waves are
>and believes that their speed has never been measured in vacuum.
Thus, what he is describing as measuring speed is not what you imagine
it to be. Are you aware of the fact that, according to the mathematics
of quantum theory governing photons (which, owing to their relativistic
velocity, defy precise description, as this discussion illustrates),
light particles don't travel in straight lines to begin with, but take
every possible path between any two points? Their very existence, in
fact, is only really nailed down at the end points where you measure
them, and saying that they "are", let alone "travel", in the space
between the points is simply an artifact of our language, built to
explain the normal world where the probabilities of quantum physics even
out, and the particles are traveling slow enough relative to each other
that time/space distortion doesn't become an issue.
>Here, let's try a similar sentence more along the cola lines and see how
>you react:
>
>"Linux is a MSDOS derivative, written by Dave Cutler and has never been
>used in a single commercial application"
'Linux' is an original GNU project, not derivative of anything that came
before. Dave Cutler never wrote much of anything; he was an engineer,
he designed things, he was not an author primarily. It is impossible,
according to the Free Software Foundation, to use Linux in a "single
commercial application", since if your application is entirely based on
only GPL code (assuming Linux includes the typical GNU distribution, and
so ignoring the issue of "system calls") it must be GPL, and cannot be
commercially licensed.
>Would you bother to try and find any real truth in that sentance? It's
>obviously false.
You meant it to be gibberish as a sentence, and so it is. Yet, as I
have demonstrated, all rhetorical claims can be considered reasonable,
and all claims in your statement can be considered true and correct.
All tautologies are correct, thus all valid tautologies are reasonable,
thus your sentence is correct, for it is a tautology, as all statements
are. Rhetorically, at least.
Being false and being unreasonable are two different things. The first
has more to do with being correct than being true, and the second is
more a matter of being incomprehensible than being incorrect.
--
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: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:59:32 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 19 May 2001 11:39:40
>> >Edward Rosten wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > I think the SETI program is a farce! No offense to you, but I often
>> >> > wonder what good does it do them? Radio waves travel a little slower
>> >> > than the speed of light.
>> >>
>> >> Radio waves travel *exactly* at the speed of light, since they're the
>> >> same stuff.
>> >
>> >The National Bureua of Standards has measured it to be about 88% of c.
>> >It does not travel at the speed of light. Neither do electrons in a
>> >copper wire.
>>
>> Through air, maybe; through the vacuum of space, it's a lot closer to
>> 100%.
>
>So, you are ignorant about more then just computers, T. Max?
As all wise men since Socrates have recognized of themselves, I am
abjectly and profoundly ignorant of everything, Ayende. Some think his
claim was hubris, some think it stupidity. Only he could ever know,
and, alas, he claims ignorance as well.
>C is the speed of light in vacuum, it moves in 100% C in vacuum.
Note the rhetorical value, then, of pointing out that 'vacuum', as an
abstraction, is not the same as 'the vacuum of space'. It may be close
to 100% the same, but it is pointedly not the same, either in practice
(where real particles fill space, only less closely than it does in
gravity wells) or in theory (where virtual particles cause a 'foam' to
appear at the Plank distances where light exists.)
--
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: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:59:34 GMT
Said Gary Hallock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 16:33:05
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> How embarrassing? Light is radio waves, too; yet as waves, some
>> frequencies travel slower than others.
>
>That's only true when light or any other em travels through a physical
>medium. In a vacuum (which is how this whole conversation started) all
>em waves travel at the same speed.
Light particles exist at Plank distances; either no amount of matter
save a neutron star is a 'physical medium', or no amount of empty space
could be considered not to be 'a physical medium'. All em waves are
thought to propagate at the same speed. As GreyCloud has pointed out,
no real-world experiments have conclusively performed these measurements
without some physical medium in the path.
This doesn't matter to the scientists; I'm only pointing out that the
fact that it does matter to you is no more important or correct than the
fact that it does matter to GreyCloud.
>> I would have thought that people on technical newsgroups, even advocacy
>> groups, would be aware of the duality of physics, and not waste time
>> quibbling about these things as if Usenet discussion will prove
>> conclusively something that all the great physicists in the world cannot
>> yet sort out.
>
>I'm well aware of the duality of physics. I've gotten the impression
>that GreyCloud may not be since he seems to want to treat radio em as
>waves and visible light as particles when, in fact, they are both.
They are, in fact, neither; they can be described as either, using
either Einstein's math or Bohr's. But not both, because these are
contradictory sets of mathematics. Thus, GreyCloud's "quantum energy
packet" side-steps the issue of particle or wave, just as the frequent
use of "radiation" does. His looks more particle-like, but cheats (by
being non-corporeal, i.e. photons don't exist in vacuum), yours looks
more wave-like, but cheats (by confusing propagation rate and
'velocity'). Both are predicated on some assumptions that the world
works one way or the other. But all such assumptions are contradictory
to certain facts, until both wave and particle are explained as strings.
Then we have the vastly more counter-intuitive idea that velocity
through space is just a vibrational pattern of something which is moving
at varying speeds through time (and, such 'speed through time' is
nothing more than vibrational patterns in one of seven other curled-up
dimensions which are less than half an inch in diameter, yet touch every
point in space-time.)
So if you actually understand duality, you would bother insisting that
light is not particle or wave but both, without knowing the futility of
claiming that, because the facts are that it is neither, but something
else we haven't figure out yet.
>He
>has said on a number of occasions now that light is not em. Pretty basic
>physics to be disputing while providing no evidence. The only thing he
>has done so far is quote some unnamed source inside some secret DoD
>department. That's not science. Science requires openess and peer review.
I don't recall anything about it being a "secret" program. I do recall
it being based on the work of real scientists. It may not contradict
Maxwell's equations, or it may. Both *are* possible, you know. Even at
the same time, depending on how cutting edge you want to get, and how
much the fact that something is published makes it automatically "true".
--
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: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 16:59:35 GMT
Said Eric Remy in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 16:48:38
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>Said Jasper in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001 12:29:14 GMT;
>>>On 20 May 2001 13:35:11 -0500, "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I thought you were educated? Time to go back to class...
>>>>
>>>>radio waves travel slower than light...
>>>
>>>How embarrissing. Radio waves are light.
>>
>>How embarrassing? Light is radio waves, too; yet as waves, some
>>frequencies travel slower than others.
>
>In vacuum, all frequencies of EM radiation travel at c.
So we've heard. I'm beginning to suspect this is an artifact of the
standard curriculum in computer science and engineering programs.
>(Yes, yes, in various media this isn't the case. But if you want to
>correct someone you should be precise.)
I was. No qualifiers were necessary, and so none were provided. This
is precision. What you are thinking of is 'accuracy', I think. Not
quite the same thing. But if you want to claim someone isn't being
precise, you should be correct.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:00:52 GMT
On Tue, 22 May 2001 00:30:21 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I know... what people can't see won't believe in. They rely too much on
>their limited senses to break away from their limited paradigm.
Very true. I missed it the first time.
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Intermediate user who left Windows for Linux
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:10:46 GMT
On Tue, 22 May 2001 02:03:17 GMT, Techno Barbie
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I decided to switch to Linux after trying to reinstall MS Word on a new PC
>I had just purchased. Of course, when I installed Word I had to call MS due
>to they sent me a nice e-mail informing me that copying Word on more than
>one PC was illegal. I then called there support desk to get Word unlocked.
>The sales person then probed me why I was trying to install in on another
>computer, and asked if I knew it was illegal to copy the product on more
>than one computer. She then started to ask me a few settings on my PC, and
>after I had enough, I told her to forget it I was not going to use it
>anymore.
When I first installed Win2k Professional (not server) on my home
system I installed the same copy on 2 different machines just like
every other home user does. About 3 weeks or so later I received a
flyer from MS addressing piracy and what it can cost if you get caught
and offering some seminar or program (I forget the particulars) that I
can attend/buy so I could effectively learn how to audit my companies
systems to prevent a visit from the software piracy police.
Coincidence?
I don't think so.
I only run Win2k on one machine and Win98SE on the other one and Win95
on my laptop, all licensed, so it's a moot point but I found it
interesting.
>I really wonder how MS new security measures on their software, is going to
>effect the average user. For me it was enough to tick me off and make a
>switch to another operating system.
If you use DAW software (Cubase, Sonar, Sound Forge etc) it's going to
become very annoying and it just might start the rebellion going.
>Well off to learn something called the command line :-)
You can do 99.99 percent of everything you'll need to do in Linux from
the gui.
>Techno (as in the music) Barbie
>
>
>
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.protocols.smb
Subject: Re: Win2000 SP2 breaks Samba 2.2 PDC?
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:14:14 GMT
On Tue, 22 May 2001 03:12:37 GMT, Chronos Tachyon
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>However, earlier today I installed the recently released SP2 on one of the
>workstations. The machine immediately had trouble with authenticating
>against the PDC, enumerating the domain users, etc. I figured I would try
>to re-add the machine to the domain since maybe the upgrade threw some
I can't wait to see what it does to my DAW :(
I'm Drive imaging it as we speak so I can go back in a matter of
minutes instead of hours.
flatfish++++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:23:11 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 22 May 2001 05:52:12 +0200, "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
>
> >I suppose you think that infra red or ultra violet aren't light either,
> >because you can't see them?
>
>
> I can't wait to hear his explanation of where the wind comes from :)
>
Oh, that is easy, T. Max undoubtly thinks that the wind is caused by the
movements of tree tops.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 20:32:54 +0200
http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3387/1/
I can't say I don't agree.
Some points:
A> The linux desktop company he's talking about is likely Mandrake.
B> He agrees with Daniel about users getting computer/OSes/shells not for
the sake of the computer/OS/Shell, but for the applications that it run.
C> He seems to agree with me that you can't offer a slightly-less or equal
product in order to convice people to switch, you need something vastly
sueprior.
Comments, anyone?
OK, well, let us be realistic?
Flames, anyone?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS!!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:34:18 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, JamesW wrote:
>In article <9e3jit$qb4$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "chrisv"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert) wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > 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
>
>I thought Intel were a 'strategic partner' of ARM Holdings not the owner.
>ARM Holdings is based in Cambridge - they design the StrongARM chips and
>license these designs to others (Intel) to manufacture. Incidently
>Motorola use StrongARM chips in their mobile phones.
No no no. Erik Fuckenbush says HP makes these chips.
He also passes along that we are all full of shit.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Windows beats Linux anyday!!!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:35:36 GMT
In article <OtrO6.8336$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Ben Millar wrote:
>
>
>
And I encourage you to continue to use those old turn
of the century OS's for as long as they last.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Intermediate user who left Windows for Linux
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 19:36:15 +0200
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Terry Porter"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2001 02:03:17 GMT,
> Techno Barbie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> I really wonder how MS new security measures on their software, is
>> going to effect the average user. For me it was enough to tick me off
>> and make a switch to another operating system.
> Microsoft have already said that "the small business and home sectors
> are where the majority of piracy occurs" so I suppose these areas wont
> be too happy.
>
I was wondering out loud with a colleague today about this very point. He
is a Win98 user, as he doesn't need anything more sophisticated (his
opinion, and quite respectable). We just don't get it: Microsoft says
that casual home piracy is costing them lots of money; how can this be if
almost every PC will have Windows preinstalled in the first place? How
can you pirate something when you already *have* a legal copy installed?
The only market segment that would be worrisome are those that build
their own PC's, and that surely is not a big enough segment to really
worry MS, is it?
Of course there is the possibility of the small business user having just
a few seats more than Client Access Licenses, but honestly, compared to
corporations with hundreds, maybe thousands of seats, that is an
insignificant share of the market as well. So where is all that piracy
(hate that word) occuring, that it is cutting into Microsofts bottom line
so hard?
Of course, Microsoft have only themselves to blame. Their bundling
tactics have fostered in the customer a perception that Windows is a
commodity, something that is bundled with your machine for free, thus
undercutting Microsofts moral stance on copyright infringement. I mean,
what's so bad about installing Windows on 2 machines, it's free, right?
Not that that attitude is correct, but it is wholly understandable. They
can go for either bundling or activation, but not both at the same time,
that's asking for a major PR debacle.
What *are* they trying to achieve? Can't they just see that this will
blow up in their faces?
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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: Tue, 22 May 2001 17:36:20 GMT
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9edsjg$laa$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > If
> > your assertion is correct, then the majority of 6502 instructions would
> > take 3 cycles: fetch instruction, fetch data, execute. This sounds
> > corect to me and of course would demolish Erik's point even more.
>
> Indeed. The implied addressing ones take two cycles. These include
>
> TAX, TXA, T??..., NOP, INX, INY, etc
>
> Others take more, for instance
>
> LDA #XX
>
> Takes 3 since it has 2 memory fetches (I'm pretty sure it takes 3)
> Zero page ones take more and general memory address ones take more still.
>
Zero page and Immediate both took 2 cycles and Absolute took 3 cycles, p416
C= programmer ref guide. Zero page was always fast than Absolute
addressing. The only reason I knew were the guide was, I just got done
cleaning up all the old Commodore equipment, I have to sort the stuff.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (.)
Subject: Re: Intermediate user who left Windows for Linux
Date: 22 May 2001 17:40:17 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Tue, 22 May 2001 02:03:17 GMT, Techno Barbie
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>I decided to switch to Linux after trying to reinstall MS Word on a new PC
>>I had just purchased. Of course, when I installed Word I had to call MS due
>>to they sent me a nice e-mail informing me that copying Word on more than
>>one PC was illegal. I then called there support desk to get Word unlocked.
>>The sales person then probed me why I was trying to install in on another
>>computer, and asked if I knew it was illegal to copy the product on more
>>than one computer. She then started to ask me a few settings on my PC, and
>>after I had enough, I told her to forget it I was not going to use it
>>anymore.
> When I first installed Win2k Professional (not server) on my home
> system I installed the same copy on 2 different machines just like
> every other home user does. About 3 weeks or so later I received a
> flyer from MS addressing piracy and what it can cost if you get caught
> and offering some seminar or program (I forget the particulars) that I
> can attend/buy so I could effectively learn how to audit my companies
> systems to prevent a visit from the software piracy police.
> Coincidence?
> I don't think so.
You're an idiot. They send that to everyone with a registered license.
Having never once owned a license for W2K, I never recieved such a flyer.
No matter how many machines I ran it on in my house.
=====.
--
"George Dubya Bush---the best presidency money can buy"
---obviously some Godless commie heathen faggot bastard
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 19:49:14 +0200
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article <9ee7sc$f9s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Ayende Rahien"
<don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3387/1/
>
> I can't say I don't agree.
>
> Some points:
> A> The linux desktop company he's talking about is likely Mandrake. B>
> He agrees with Daniel about users getting computer/OSes/shells not for
> the sake of the computer/OS/Shell, but for the applications that it run.
> C> He seems to agree with me that you can't offer a slightly-less or
> equal product in order to convice people to switch, you need something
> vastly sueprior.
>
> Comments, anyone?
> OK, well, let us be realistic?
> Flames, anyone?
>
>
>
For my response see the thread 'RIP the Linux Desktop'. Just a few
threads up.
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 12:55:00 -0500
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9ee7sc$f9s$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.linuxplanet.com/linuxplanet/opinions/3387/1/
>
> I can't say I don't agree.
>
> Some points:
> A> The linux desktop company he's talking about is likely Mandrake.
> B> He agrees with Daniel about users getting computer/OSes/shells not for
> the sake of the computer/OS/Shell, but for the applications that it run.
> C> He seems to agree with me that you can't offer a slightly-less or equal
> product in order to convice people to switch, you need something vastly
> sueprior.
Not to mention new innovation. Everything that was out there for
Linux was either a rehashed 30-year old app with a new GUI
front end, or a cheap knock-off of a current Microsoft app.
-c
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
