Linux-Advocacy Digest #697, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 15:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form (Richard Thrippleton)
Re: Intermediate user who left Windows for Linux (Dave Martel)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (Roberto Alsina)
Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("JS \\ PL")
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Brian
Langenberger)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Thrippleton)
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,soc.men,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: evolutionary (oh boy) psychology: the short form
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:50:08 +0000
In article <9ed45k$ajv2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, jet wrote:
>
>Aaron R. Kakis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> jackie wrote:
>> > amusingly enough if homosexuality is genetic the genes promoting it may
>> > well be more numerous today because homophobia is so universal. that is
>> > to say, by forcing men who would prefer the only the company of men to
>> > marry a beard society has generated more of the very thing that might
>> ^^^^^
>> is this a typo?
>
>LOL! Aaron you have reached levels of ignorance that are shocking even for
>you!
>
>A beard is a member of the opposite sex a homosexual person gets married to,
>or has a similar kind of relationship with, in order to look straight.
Never heard that phrase before. Guess _I'm_ ignorant too....
You know what felching is?
Richard
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Intermediate user who left Windows for Linux
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 11:49:06 -0600
On Tue, 22 May 2001 19:36:15 +0200, "Mart van de Wege"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So where is all that piracy
>(hate that word) occuring, that it is cutting into Microsofts bottom line
>so hard?
Hey, they have to have SOME excuse to give their shareholders when new
"upgraded" versions of WIndows languish on the shelves.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: 22 May 2001 18:03:38 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"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.
"Everything that was out there". What is the point in time that "was"
makes reference to, and what "was" that is not still?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 14:09:25 -0400
I have to say, Linux Mandrake 8 was looking real damn good. Support for all
my hardware (for once) easy set-up, even seting up networking and connection
sharing was painless. Good newsreader - Knode, pretty stable OS. I even
liked the fact that it stayed connected to the Internet when switching users
(unlike Win2K) I was actually contemplating using it much more often and
only using Windows for apps I need to use that aren't available on Linux.
But....
Well after half a day checking out the new XP OS, I have to say IT KICKS
MANDRAKE ASS!!
Internet connection stays when switching users! And get this - Applications
even stay open and are there (still open) when returning to that user.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. Of course the browser still kicks ass,
and copy and paste is still much much better between apps, as opposed to the
hit and miss copy/paste support in Linux. Ohh I could go on and endlessly
list how much better XP is than Mandrake. Once again the Linux community is
playing catch up to the industry leader. Competition at it's finest!
Thank You.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:15:46 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >>
> > Had GEM taken off, we would know be
> > arguing about whether Digital Research
> > had unfairly crushed Microsoft. :D
>
> Hardly. Gary Kildall did not have the arrogance
> and killer instinct of Bill Gates.
IMHO, he would have had to get at least
some of that "killer instinct" in order for
GEM to take off.
And I bet the arrogance would have come
naturally with success. :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: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:15:50 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > No, I don't think it did. The stuff about
> > merit came into this thread when I made
> > the argument that the merits of Windows
> > had been what attracted developers, and
> > that this was what Microsoft's little
> > empire was based.
>
> Actually, Windows programming back then
> was pretty rough stuff, very difficult.
Back when? In 1981 Windows didn't
exist. In 1985, it did, but it was so
difficult and so rough that it was
avoided.
In 1990 it finially managed to be
a reasonably good tool for development;
and crucially, it was still pretty cheap.
In many ways Microsoft should thank
their lucky stars for the management of
Apple, Atari and Commodore.
In particular, there was a time when the
superiority of the Macintosh was pretty
obvious; those were the days of "Mac
envy". The Mac was about as good
as it was going to get, and Windows
was not yet good enough to use
for much.
I've been giving it short shrift, but Apple's
failure at this point shows that cost does
count. By making their computers expensive,
they made any software written to it a harder
sell. You had to convince your customers to
shell out for a Mac.
Some developers did write for the Mac anyway,
becuase the advantages were great enough to
overcome this downside.
But many did not; and for many rather
pedestrian tasks, creaky old character
based DOS software stayed on top-
it wasn't as good, but it was cheaper.
> But apart from Mac and GEM, and the
> Amiga, there was no other way to go.
Those were possibilities, and there was
also MS-DOS itself of course. And the
8-bit micros hung around for quite
a while, too.
> The MS-DOS victory was already paying
> off for Microsoft.
I hope you aren't one of those who feels
that Windows won out just because
MS had a very successful product in
DOS.
Such an explaination doesn't really
explain the mechanism by which this
could happen, and does not explain why
Windows took so long to succeed. If
it was all done by evil duplicitousness
on MS's part, it's hard to see why they
didn't get evil with Windows 1.
It's my view that Windows 1 failed
because it wasn't a good enough
development platform; the memory
problems it had offset its benefits
in the eyes of virtually everyone.
> Windows programmers have it pretty
> easy today.
This didn't just happen. MS has been
very aggressive about improving their
platform for developers.
> (Still need that debugger
> and bounds-checker, though.)
Well, yes. I don't know a platform where
those tools are not useful.
I do know some that provide
bounds-checking as a standard
feature, but they do that because
it *is* useful, I expect.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:15:51 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9ecl8t$71d$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3IgO6.34587$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > So, now that we've got you bent over with your pants down, why don't
you
> > > tell us what "core" means, accurately, consistently, and practically,
so
> > > that the spanking can continue?
> >
> > How about, "the smallest set of products that, if somehow
> > lost, would derail Microsofts business model, future
> > plans, etc".
>
> NT/2K/XP Kernel? :-}
MS could surely soldier on with Windows 9x
for quite some time, I think.
I think both Windows 9x and NT need to be
in there; losing either would seem to derail
their current plans.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:15:52 GMT
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > VMS was eventually rewritten for portability and
> > redubbed "OpenVMS". But at one time what you
> > say was true.
>
> Yes, and I sort of missed out on OpenVMS. I'm still waiting for that
> VAX 4000 to be sent to me. I'm just paying for the shipping. It has VAX
> fortran and C installed running OpenVMS 7.1. Looking forward to using
> it again.
I never used OpenVMS myself, but I hear
it is considered pretty stable too.
> When I programmed on the VAX series I only had to deal with terminal
> services. It was easy to program as every thing one wanted to do
> already existed as a system service call. I usually used the best
> virtues of a two or more languages to get a program written and up and
> running without a lot of hassles. I found it harder to program MS dos
> than under VMS.
I agree; having a rich set of APIs is a great boon.
DOS was such a pain. An 8-bit OS with
delusions of grandure, if you ask me. :D
[snip]
> > Sure. They two OSes are not identical. But then,
> > I was really talking about the low-level OS structures;
> > there's no equivalent to GDI on VMS, but some
> > other things do have strong parallels.
>
> I'm curious as to how NT O/S responds, when you put many users on a
> server, during an initial login sequence. On VMS the priority level
> jumps to real-time long enough to send a login prompt, and then
> stairsteps down in priority over a short period of time so as not to
> interfere with other users.
I'm not sure. I don't have an NT box
handy to check this with.
I know that NT *can* do that; it does
do it for the dialog you get when you
hit ctrl-alt-delete when logged in. Thus
logging *off* is expedited in the way you
describe.
Logging on I'm not so sure of.
> This may show the structural differences.
I don't think so. Both OSes use the same
process scheduling model 'under the skin',
though the Win32 API makes it look
a little different. Both permit a suitably
privileged app to increase its priority
temporarily, and the system does use
the ability from time to time.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:15:53 GMT
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> > > Again, I have no problem printing any kind of graphics to my Epson
600.
> >
> > You can't take advantage of the Epson's
> > built-in font that way. You can print much
> > faster if you do.
>
> All I have to do is add those capabilities in the filter that pipes it
> to ghostscript.
My read of the GhostScript docs suggests
that it only ever emits raster images;
I don't see how changing what you pipe to it
can affect this.
[snip]
> > I disagree. Having to compose your own
> > postscript and stream it out is the kind of
> > pain developers do not need.
>
> I'm finding out that Sun has a program called application Builder. It's
> sort of a click and drag like MS windows uses in the application
> wizards. So far it has been fairly simple to get printer output. Text
> ---> PS ---> lp ---> filter ---> ghostscript.
I don't quite follow. If it's like MS's wizardy things
it generates code for common cases, but you still have
to fill in a lot of code yourself.
> Its not that hard actually. But then I'm still new in this compared to
> VMS. I'm actually enjoying trying to try new things in Solaris, even if
> it is slower than Linux. At least I have all of the on-line
> documentation available along with on-line trouble shooting. Someday
> I'll buy a sparc and try that out, but its the last thing on my list of
> priorities.
I can understand that.
> > It's not just painful; you can't take full
> > advantage of some printers when using
> > PostScript.
>
> Again that's where ghostscript comes into play.
Yes, it is. GhostScript lets any printer that
can emit a bitmap print PostScript; that
does not mean it can take advantage of
*other* features that the printer may have.
Not all of them do have other features-
WinPrinters generally just print bitmaps;
but some do.
[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: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:15:54 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > > > Other software *did* exist. IBM would sell
> > > > you genuine DOS, not to mention DR-DOS.
> > >
> > > Pricing. The CP/M offered by IBM has hugely overpriced, as you have
been
> > > told.
> >
> > CP/M was a Digital Research project.
>
> Duh.
> I repeat:
> Pricing. The CP/M offered by IBM has hugely overpriced, as you have been
> told.
A pretty silly thing for Digitial Research
to do, I'm sure you'll agree.
> > IBM had a deal with MS so they could sell MS-DOS themselves;
> > they renamed it PC-DOS but it was the same code.
>
> Duh.
So you didn't have to go to MS to get the
real DOS.
[snip]
> > You need to get your timelines straight. The Windows 3.11
> > beta happened *after* the ascendancy of Windows; it
> > can't explain how Windows became ascendant, still
> > less how DOS did so.
>
> you need to ubderstand the market. window$ "ascendancy" (gee, did that
> scare you?) began with winodw$ 3. 1, and 2 were pretty much shunned by
> the marketplace.
Windows 3 predates Windows 3.11.
> DOS became a monoploy by m$ predatory anti-competitive actions.
That is, they sold it cheaper than DR sold
CP/M-86. :D
[snip]
> > Had GEM taken off, we would know be
> > arguing about whether Digital Research
> > had unfairly crushed Microsoft. :D
>
> Would we? are you sure Killdal had the same lack of ethics and morals as
> Gates et al? From reports it is doubtful.
No, I don't. But I think that had he been
successful, the same crowd would have
resented it. They might have had to find
slightly different excuses, but really that
isn't so hard to do.
[snip]
> > Ran Unix apps, though.
>
> Didnt run window$ apps.
You don't even notice how your
argument is circular, do you?
[snip]
> > You never exactually connect the dots;
> > that's why it comes across like black
> > magic. Apparently if Microsoft passes
> > mean-sounding memos around, the OEMs
> > somehow all have to submit.
> >
> > This makes no sense.
>
> Only to the terminally stupid. The memos outline plans that ar carried
> out.
Except for the ones that weren't, of course. :D
[snip]
> > > You... are... wrong. Developers follow trhe money.
> >
> > Why did not Aldus make Pagemaker for the PC,
> > first and only? That was where the bulk of the
> > market was.
>
> There WASNT a market. The Mac, laserwriter and Pagemaker MADE a market.
The installed base of PCs was much larger than
the installed base of Macs.
Aldus ignored it. Why?
[snip]
> > It was a upgrade and port from the "Vulcan Database";
> > I think this ran on CP/M.
>
> Do you have a cite for this, anything at all?
Not all in one place; this product was not
very successful. It gets casual mentions in
a number of histories that you can find on
the web- search for "Vulcan Database"- but
I've not found a history of this product
that is condensed into a single site.
That is why I only think it ran on CP/M.
[snip]
> > > Too... BAD.
> >
> > Yes, it was too bad for the PC that important
> > products were developed on the Mac, because
> > it provided better tools in areas that mattered
> > for those products.
>
> Page layout was delveloped for the Mac because the Mac was a bette
> product for it.
Yes.
> Still is.
I'm not so sure. What advantages does the Mac retain
today that are relevant for desktop publishing?
> Page layout migrated to the PeeCee becasue of
> sheer bulk of numbers.
It did. And it died a horrible death there, because
products like Ventura Publisher were just not
good enough compared to PageMaker.
It wasn't until Windows got good that
desktop publishing on the PC could be
taken seriously.
> > No amount of marketshare could change this.
>
> It did.
The marketshare was always there; it wasn't
until the platform improved that things
really changed.
It's not for nothing that PageMaker was
an early adopter of Windows.
------------------------------
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: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:15:56 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > Im sure. dBAse II ran on the Apple II also. Do you know how?
> >
> > If it did, I bet it involved putting a CP/M
> > computer in an expansion slot. :D
>
> Guessing?
Yes. It's possible there was a port of the
Vulcan Database to the Apple II that
flopped; I merely have no evidence for
it.
Certainly it was an even worse platform
for it than CP/M.
[snip]
> > Same reason MS later paid off Digital;
> > they had clearly ripped off big hunks of
> > the design, and it wouldn't take *that*
> > much creativity to make a lawsuit out
> > of it.
>
> Other people say differently. Other people say "Microsoft DOS contined
> lines of code written by DRI's founder Gary Kildall. In fact, IBM was
> so paranoid about that when they realized Gates had sold them a clone,
> they paid Kildall about $8000,000..."
> I've given you the reference many times.
It does not matter who said it; it's still
impossible. The IBM PC was the first PC
to use the 8088 CPU. There was
no version of CP/M that ran on this CPU
before MS-DOS came along.
[snip]
> > No, I don't think it did. The stuff about
> > merit came into this thread when I made
> > the argument that the merits of Windows
> > had been what attracted developers, and
> > that this was what Microsoft's little
> > empire was based.
>
> And you are wrong. Developers followed the money.
I know your opinion on this matter;
I observe that you can't defend it, but
must repeat it over and over.
> > I was certainly speaking of merits
> > for development at all times.
>
> But your premise is wrong. They didnt move becasue of development tools.
> They moved because they could make money. The tools came later.
I should speak of "development environment" rather
than tools. Just having a larger address space is
a win. So is having a floppy disk as a standard
feature. So is having lowercase as a standard
feature.
This is true even if you have to code machine
langauge bytes directly.
Mind you, there *were* development tools
for the early PC, and they quickly
outstripped what you could do on an
8-bit machine.
[snip]
> > > "... this Randy Brandt". You really are clueless about the A2 world,
> > > arent you?
> >
> > You mean there's *another* Randy Brandt
> > besides this one?
> >
> > Or do you just mean he is a famous
> > Apple II diehard?
> >
> Clueless. Just clueless. Ever hear of things like Timeout? Beagle
> Brothers? Things like that?
I've heard of the Beagle Brothers, but I didn't
know them personally.
You don't seem to be able to provide a reason
to think this Brandt is the source of the data
he has promulgated.
Why is that?
[snip]
> > > As an Appleworks addon programmer, I'd say he had plenty of sources.
Try
> > > the Softalk reader's pools.
> >
> > I fail to see what sources an AppleWorks add-on
> > programmer would have so especially.
>
> You would.
Yes, yes, I would.
> > What would the Softtalk reader's pools do
> > for him?
>
> Are you that stupid? How baout give some idea of what people liked..
> what was selling... why.
Softtalk was a magazine of the time, wasn't it?
Why would anyone thing its readership was
representative of anything in particular?
[snip]
> > > It as so not useful that it sold tons, and several versions of Cp/M
ran
> > > on it.
> >
> > Hacks like that will sell to hobbists, yes,
> > but businesses have better things to do
> > than that.
>
> Did you just say that businesses did NOT buy the Softcard? Clueless
> again.
Well, the smart ones didn't. :D
> > It's like the PC-on-a-card add-ons for
> > Macs. There's a small market, but it
> > doesn't really amount to much in
> > the grand scheme of things.
>
> Then why did the SoftCard sell so well? Maybe to run CP/M -business-
> applications? Hmmm?
What makes you think the SoftCard
sold "well" at all?
There was much less reason to put
CP/M on an Apple II than there
is to put a PC-card in a Mac. The
Apple II had more software than
CP/M did, back then.
[snip]
> > > No they werent. Unless you can WP, DB, SS meaningless work.
> >
> > You might want to read a little more carefully.
> > I certainly do not call word processing or
> > shreadsheets "meaningful database work";
>
> Why dont you go to an administrative assistant convention and tell them
> they do meaningless work. Or tell an accountant. You really are an
> arrogant self-important SOB.
I said "database" not "fnord". You are allowed to
see that word. :D
> > and the glorified cardfiles you could get- like
> > the one in AppleWorks- hardly count.
>
> Does dBMaster Pro count?
Never heard of it.
> Does dBAse II count?
Yes.
> What counts except what
> you like? Who do you think bought Apple IIs and Visicalc? "Hobbyists"?
> Oh, Im sorry. Did that scare you?
Business bought VisiCalc, and Apple IIs to run
it on. The II wasn't a bad machine for a small
spreadsheet to run on; 48k of memory was
enough, and fast bootable disks were very
helpful.
40 column, all uppercase text was ugly, but
it wasn't a big handicap for a spreadsheet.
[snip]
> > Well, yes, but you could get *real*
> > database from any number of sources;
> > you just had to get a minicomputer.
>
> Sure. Just any pld litle office could bet a mini. Idiot.
You might be surprised about that. They
were expensive, but they weren't
*that* expensive.
[snip]
> Other computers ahd datanses too. Just becasue you dont think anything
> counted before the PeeCee doesnt make that right.
Sure. But *8-bit* computers were no good
at databases; tiny disks and tiny memories
are real problems. Databases need to
store and work with volumes of data-
even for a small office.
[snip]
> > In 1981, however, the PC was up against
> > the Apple ][+, which also had a terrible
> > keyboard, no lowercase, and only 40
> > column text.
> >
>
> And it had VisiCalc,
Yes. The PC really needed Lotus 1-2-3
to take off properly.
But the PC did have a larger address
space and 80-column display, both of
which were advantageous for spreadsheets.
> and lowercase kits and 80 column video cards.
These hardly count.
[snip]
> > I mean the kind of things programs
> > like Crystal Reports do, or what programs
> > like RPG did for years.
>
> Too bad you dont mean reports like normal people mean it.
Ah. As I thought; you have some weird idiosyncratic
definition of "reports".
Unti you tell me what you think reports
are, I can't say much more about this.
[snip]
> > ClarisWorks was plenty integrated. *Microsoft*
> > Works wasn't.
> >
>
> m$ Works was just as integrated as Clarisworks, without the GUI.
Huh?
MS Works *has* a GUI.
It was not, however, as integrated as
ClarisWorks. ClarisWorks made quite
the splash when it was released because
of this. It set a new standard.
[snip]
> > There were other integrated
> > packages, but I am not familiar enough
> > with them to tell you what their strengths
> > were.
>
> Just name 3. # that were out within 1 year of Appleworks.
I guess you can't do it yourself, because you
know very little about the other packages
available at the time.
> > Since you know everything about early 80's
> > micros, perhaps you could point out
> > AppleWorks' competition, and tell us all
> > how exactly they fell short of AppleWorks
> > standards?
>
> I just said there wasnt any competition. For a while.
You ought to show why other products fell
short, so that they weren't competition.
> > It would boost your argument considerably,
> > if you did.
>
> Like you'd lieten?
I suspect I'm the only one with the
patience to do so. :D
[snip]
> > In 1978 (or was it 77?) it was the best
> > you could have for the price. In 1981 that
> > was no longer true.
> >
> > Some engineers may have considered it clever,
> > but I consider it a kludge.
>
> That just shouw you self-important arrogance.
By the way, just what engineers do you know
who considered the Apple IIs graphics
system a work of "art"?
[snip]
> > That is not much of an alibi. You
> > really should need an add-on kit
> > for lower-case support.
>
> Like anyone really knew the micro market at the time. These were still
> pioneers.
That does not make it any better.
[snip]
> > > What reasons are there for using big iron for office work?
> >
> > What do you mean by "office work"?
>
> Dolt. Did the quotes scare you? "office work" mean work done in an
> "office".
Sweeping up the floors? :D
> > If you mean the work done by MS Office
> > and equivalents, there is no reason; mainframes
> > are terrible at it.
> >
> > If you mean "work done in the offices
> > of business", the main reason is that
> > this stuff is highly critical and the bigger
> > offices do not want to trust their
> > critical data to some johnny come
> > lately technology.
>
> You just said bigger offices dont use m$ Office.
No, I didn't. What they don't use is
SQL Server. :D
I get the feeling, Rick, that you don't know
too much about what actually goes on in offices.
It isn't exactly all word processing. In fact, that
is kind of peripheral.
Computers have been used for years and years
now to automate office work; they were used
for that years before word processors as such
even existed.
They have been used for data entry, for
accounting, and for workflow automation.
And they are used for data analysis; and
that mostly means reporting.
This was all stuff the 8-bit micros culd
not handle. They did not have the storage,
and even more than that they did not have
the tools.
The IBM PC began the change here;
it was only able to handle very small
problems of this sort, but it was at
least able to do that.
[snip]
> > > Mainframes run older software? My Tandy Model 102 is a mainframe?
> >
> > No. The Tandy Model 102 is an '80s
> > computer. A young whipper snapper. A
> > veritable babe in the woods.
> >
> > I had one of those once. Neat little
> > toy. So cute. Adorable, really.
>
> You really are a jerk.
What, just for liking the Model 102?
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 18:18:14 +0000 (UTC)
In comp.os.linux.advocacy "JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<drivel snipped>
What a headline: "MS-Windows User Enjoys More MS-Windows"
: and copy and paste is still much much better between apps, as opposed to the
: hit and miss copy/paste support in Linux.
I'm still waiting for Windows to support the middle mouse button for
pasting like practically EVERY SINGLE X11 CLIENT EVER WRITTEN.
Keystrokes for copying/pasting is truly a pain in the ass...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
