Linux-Advocacy Digest #711, Volume #34 Tue, 22 May 01 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) ("Gary Hallock")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! (Zsolt)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Hypothetical (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("David Dorward")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Chronos Tachyon)
Re: Win2000 Annoyances (Nigel Feltham)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Jan
Johanson")
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("Jan
Johanson")
Re: Hypothetical (Charles Lyttle)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the (Ian Pulsford)
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux ("Jan Johanson")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Gary Hallock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 19:08:23 +0000
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
In article
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Do you ever think that our gov. would tell the world everything? Do you
> trust your Gov. completely? I know they haven't told everything... and
> I end with no more conversation about it. I still rely on a pension
> from them.
>
No, I do not trust the gov entirely. So why should I trust some ex-gov
employee who tells tall tales about some secret goverment theories which
contradict basic experimental evidence?
Gary
------------------------------
From: Zsolt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:12:46 GMT
JS \\ PL <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on Tue, 22 May 2001 14:09:25 -0400 presented us
with the
wisdom:
[snip]
> ...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!
Please, tell us about the auto-update feature! You know, the one that installs
all the latest viruses on your computer without a click of the mouse or opening
of an email...
That's gotta be the biggest innovation of that "Industry leader" ever!
I just wonder which industry would that be... ;-) (maybe "garbage production")
Zsolt
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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 19:25:07 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:zrzO6.22194$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Atari, Color Computer and C64 were all cheaper than the Apple II.
>
> So were quite a few others, actually. There
> were a *lot* of different PCs available then.
>
No. There NO other PC's then. There wasnt until teh IBM PC. The others
were personal computers.
<snip>
> > The GS came out in what 1984 or 85, it was after the C64, I do remember
> > that, since the C64 had the best sound until the GS.
>
The IIgs came out in Fall of 1986
> Long after the C64, actually. It was considerably
> pricier than teh C64 too- it was in the same
> category with the Mac, Amiga or IBM PC,
> more or less.
>
<Snip>
>
> I would love to know how GEOS managed to pull
> it off on all those tiny computers. Nobody else
> managed; Apple never got the Mac user interface
> to work on anything less than a 65816. Windows
> never worked worth a damn on anything lower
> than an 80286.
The IIgs GUI conformed to the Apple Human Interface Guidelines. You
could run the original deskop on a IIe. Now... do you know how it
worked?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hypothetical
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:37:25 +0100
Scott Moore wrote:
> A hypothetical question:
>
> AT&T made an 80386 port of Unix in the early 1990s, way before Windows 95,
> way before OS/2 2.0, way before Linux. Various people ended up reselling
> it, but the average price was $700.00 to $1000.00 bucks (no, there aren't
> extra zeros there).
>
> AT&T ended up giving away Unix for a song.
>
> If they didn't have their heads up their ass, and sold Unix on the IBM-PC
> for $50 then, would the world be different ?
>
There was a version of UNIX for the 80386 in the early 90's which was
cheaply available - it was called 'Coherent' yet I bet most of the people
reading this have never heard of it for several reasons not related to cost.
1. Limited applications availability - Many programs were available for DOS
( and windows 3.0 - this was before 3.1) and few available for coherent ( I
know of no applications other than the few supplied in the distro).
2. Limited support - there was nobody writing hardware drivers for this
unix and limited technical support ( few users had internet then if it was
even available outside universities and BBS support was minimal).
There are other reasons but I expect others can come up with better ones
than I can.
Most, if not all of the problems with coherent are non-existant now on
Linux (and often also FreeBSD) so it is only in the past few years that the
alternatives to MS have had much of a chance to compete.
------------------------------
From: "David Dorward" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:30:44 +0100
It seems that on Tue, 22 May 2001 19:32:54 +0100, someone claiming to be
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> typed this:
> Some points:
> A> The linux desktop company he's talking about is likely Mandrake.
Nope, Eazel.
> 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.
Linux on the Desktop is very new. Apps are still being developed.
> 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.
Which is what Linux is working towards.
> Comments, anyone?
Try slashdot, lots of comments on the article there.
> OK, well, let us be realistic?
I am. One company with a poor business plan that got hit by the general
tech industry slow down does not constitute the death of linux on the
desltop.
--
David Dorward http://www.dorward.co.uk/
The only way to keep your health is to eat what you don't want, drink
what you don't like, and do what you'd rather not. -- Mark Twain
------------------------------
From: Chronos Tachyon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:50:56 GMT
On Tue 22 May 2001 05:45, Chad Myers wrote:
> What piece of crap this Netscape 6 is.
> Well, not as much as NS 4.7x because that
> doesn't even work any more. I guess after
> using it 12 times, it self-destructs.
>
[Snip]
NS 6 is, indeed, a piece of crap. You should try Mozilla 0.9 to see where
the Mozilla family is really at.
--
Chronos Tachyon
Guardian of Eristic Paraphernalia
Gatekeeper of the Region of Thud
[Reply instructions: My real domain is "echo <address> | cut -d. -f6,7"]
------------------------------
From: Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Win2000 Annoyances
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 01:09:55 +0100
Marcello Barboni wrote:
> Mike Vance wrote:
>
> > 5) Tired of having to reinstall Windows and every single app from
> > scratch whenever I upgrade to a new motherboard. Probably some pros out
> > there know how to get around having to do this but MS seems to want the
> > OS and the Apps to be so installation-program dependant.
>
> I have a dual boot system (linux mdk8 and win98 for gaming), I recently
> upgraded from a celeron 700 to a celeron 800 (didn't change anything else)
> and obviously linux didn't give a damn. After a few days I decided to boot
> win98 to play Unreal, and what do you know? - win98 greeted me by finding
> "new hardware" such as my NIC my SCSI card, plus a mysterious "unsupported
> device". At the end of the story (and after 3 reboots) it BSOD'ed.
> Everytime I boot it it still asks me for the drivers for this unknown
> device, so I just decided I'll play Unreal when I'll be ready to pass the
> whole day fighting this brain dead system.... and then people claim that
> *linux* is a difficult system to use....
>
> Marcello
Don't bother trying to dual-boot just to run Unreal when you can run it on
linux under WINE. This is what I do on my Mandrake 7.2 system and it
appears to run as smooth as it does under win98se on the same PC. I don't
know if this still applies on Mandrake 8 but I will know soon as I have
just got hold of the 2 install CD's for MDK8 and will be installing it next
weekend.
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[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: 22 May 2001 19:14:11 -0500
"Brian Langenberger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9eeah6$f9i$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy "JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> <drivel snipped>
>
> What a headline: "MS-Windows User Enjoys More MS-Windows"
kinda like car enthusiast enjoys better cars
strange? I think no.
>
> : and copy and paste is still much much better between apps, as opposed to
the
> : hit and miss copy/paste support in Linux.
>
> I'm still waiting for Windows to support the middle mouse button for
> pasting like practically EVERY SINGLE X11 CLIENT EVER WRITTEN.
> Keystrokes for copying/pasting is truly a pain in the ass...
Perhaps, firstly you need to ask, why would we care what X11 clients do?
Most of the world never uses them or cares or will. Next, you CAN
cut/copy/paste using your mouse without touching the keyboard already.
Last, you can configure the middle mouse button to do whatever you'd like -
are you really that inexperienced with Windows?
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!
Date: 22 May 2001 19:15:32 -0500
"Fred K Ollinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9eejc5$ctu$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Where do I download a copy of win xp?
>
Same place you download an easy to install, easy to learn, easy to use copy
of Linux.
nowhere...
------------------------------
From: Charles Lyttle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Hypothetical
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:20:13 GMT
Nigel Feltham wrote:
>
> Scott Moore wrote:
>
> > A hypothetical question:
> >
> > AT&T made an 80386 port of Unix in the early 1990s, way before Windows 95,
> > way before OS/2 2.0, way before Linux. Various people ended up reselling
> > it, but the average price was $700.00 to $1000.00 bucks (no, there aren't
> > extra zeros there).
> >
> > AT&T ended up giving away Unix for a song.
> >
> > If they didn't have their heads up their ass, and sold Unix on the IBM-PC
> > for $50 then, would the world be different ?
> >
>
> There was a version of UNIX for the 80386 in the early 90's which was
> cheaply available - it was called 'Coherent' yet I bet most of the people
> reading this have never heard of it for several reasons not related to cost.
>
> 1. Limited applications availability - Many programs were available for DOS
> ( and windows 3.0 - this was before 3.1) and few available for coherent ( I
> know of no applications other than the few supplied in the distro).
>
> 2. Limited support - there was nobody writing hardware drivers for this
> unix and limited technical support ( few users had internet then if it was
> even available outside universities and BBS support was minimal).
>
> There are other reasons but I expect others can come up with better ones
> than I can.
>
> Most, if not all of the problems with coherent are non-existant now on
> Linux (and often also FreeBSD) so it is only in the past few years that the
> alternatives to MS have had much of a chance to compete.
I used one or two copies of Coherent. It was pretty good. Lots better
than DOS. The big difference between then and now is the maturity of the
GNU library and tools. Also without the source, writing
applications/drivers was difficult.
--
Russ Lyttle
"World Domination through Penguin Power"
The Universal Automotive Testset Project at
<http://home.earthlink.net/~lyttlec>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 10:28:44 +1000
From: Ian Pulsford <[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
JS \\ PL wrote:
>
> 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.
Does this read like paid astroturfing or what!
IanP
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 22 May 2001 19:26:12 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Jan Johanson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 20 May 2001 13:09:12
> [...]
> >Yea yea, buncha chinese guys exploiting a SINGLE vulnerability that there
is
> >a fix out for already. how can you blame the OS if it's operators don't
keep
> >it current? You can't.
>
> Of course you can. Blame-throwing posturing aside, if an OS is so
> pathetic that it strains all bounds of reason in how insecure and
> bug-ridden it is,
but it's not so your remaining comments are a moot point.
<snip>
It's amazing how desperate you are to try to deflate Windows 2000's success.
It's not insecure and it works great. Your continued denial of such basic
obvious facts makes you quite annoying to attempt to debate with....
really...
------------------------------
From: "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux
Date: 22 May 2001 19:27:10 -0500
"Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:YSkO6.3709$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3b0807c3$0$37295$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Hmm... lesse, new server yesterday... installed from a W2K SP2
> > > slipstreamed
> > > > CD I just burned. After it was done applied one (1) patch and
rebooted
> > > once.
> > > > I'm not totally current... doesn't seem to bad...
> > >
> > > You just got lucky. If you had needed it last week you would have
> wasted
> > > a day or more per box making it usable or likely become a statistic
at:
> >
> > Given that the latest (and all future) security patches are now all
> > encompusing (includes all previous from last SP) I think we'll see less
of
> > the hofix chasing going on.
>
> We've all heard that story before. It must be your lack of experience
> that makes you naive enough to believe it. It was sp6 for NT before
> I could keep servers running for longer than a couple of weeks. I look
> for more of the same this time around too.
SP4 and we never had reason to reboot unexpectedly. SP5 and SP6(a) were fit
& finish patches.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:40:48 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 22 May 2001 05:45:25
[...]
>OpenGL is nice, but while it can compete with Direct3D, it doesn't compete
>with DirectX.
Nothing competes with DirectX, nobody wants DirectX, nothing in
particular even *qualifies* as DirectX, except as an
application-barrier-causing bullshit-marketing beard for preventing
competition between OpenGL and Direct3D. Because, of course, there is
frankly no way on earth Direct3D could possibly compete with OpenGL. If
not for felonious monopoly crapware market manipulations, DirectX,
including Direct3D, could not even begin to keep up with OpenGL, in
capabilities, compatibilities, or stability, performance, or convenience
of the developer.
DirectX just plain SUCKS.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:40:51 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>[snip]
>> > > No. You disregard direct quotes from m$ execs. You do it repeatedly. I
>> > > gave you a direct quote form an m$ VP saying when error messages form
>> > > the AARD code came up, they were suppose dto plant doubt in the user's
>> > > minds about DR-DOS. You decided the exec couldnt have possibly meant
>wht
>> > > he said.
>> >
>> > He didn't *say* that. You *said* he said that, but he didn't,
>> > not in the quotes your proffered.
>>
>> Microsoft Vice-President Brad Silverberg (talking about the AARD code)
>> "What the guy [using the computer] is supposed to do is feel
>> uncomfortable and when he has bugs, suspect the problem is Dr-DOS and
>> then go out and buy MS-DOS or decide not to take the risk for the other
>> machines he has to buy for in the office."
>
>You say he's talking about the AARD code, but that
>makes no sense; he's *suggesting* making Windows
>fail when run on DR-DOS; this memo is from
>before release.
He's providing instructions which perfectly identify and describe the
AARD code. Your "lame brain" naivete is not a very convincing charade,
Daniel.
>But Windows ran on DR-DOS. It didn't fail. They
>didn't do it. They didn't *take* his suggestion.
The instructions were not to have it fail. Did you not notice this, or
did you hope nobody else noticed it?
They implemented his orders; he was their boss. Boss's don't give
*suggestions*, you fucking moron.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:40:51 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Daniel Johnson wrote:
>[snip- unbearable repititions AARD silliness]
[snip - useless repetitions trolling silliness]
I mean, really, Daniel. Why bother?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:40:54 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 20 May 2001
>> >"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> 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.
>>
>> MS would, and has; none of us have, except your imaginary attempt just
>> there to apologize for the monopoly.
>
>What a strange sentence to put there. Did you
>misparse the paragraph above, too?
No; your confusion results from my decision to answer your comment both
metaphorically ("MS would try to exclude...." non-Windows apps from our
consideration) and rhetorically (we would exclude MS's apps as examples
of this imaginary point you're pretending to make).
I could have simply said "no, we are not 'trying to' do anything,
regardless of what you suppose, but point out that you are sadly
mistaken in almost the entirety of your opinions on the subject." I
might have added "And we are getting terribly *bored* with your
pretending we haven't rather soundly refuted every one of your stupid
ideas."
Perhaps it would have been the better choice, in the end.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:40:55 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
[...]
>> 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".
Yup, that's sounds perfect. And you would have to have an IQ in the
single digits to be stupid enough to believe that is anything but
Windows. If you were honest as well as smart, you'd recognize that it
is, in fact, not even Windows, but is still DOS, though that product is
carefully hidden away inside Windows and its existence is denied by MS.
Their customers know, though, which is why MS is having such trouble
getting rid of WinDOS (9x to the sock puppets).
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:40:56 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
[...]
>You don't seem to take *my* word
>for anything, you know.
You've made it abundantly clear that you are way too dishonest or stupid
to take your word for *anything*, no matter how trivial. We know.
Some of your silly claims might snow the dullards who are somehow unsure
of Microsoft's culpability. We've got no honest people left who defend
Windows in public, in case you haven't noticed. MS has burned them all
too many times; nobody is that naive without being just too damned
stupid to be skeptical. So MS is left to you sock puppets trolling on
Usenet, the only place an unreasonable position can still be
"successfully" defended ad infinitum.
Sure, MS still keeps up the marketing as a smoke-screen to convince the
dullards 'it just works' somehow describes why DOS provided an illegal
monopoly for Bill Gates. But nobody really believes them, though.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:40:57 GMT
Said Dan Pidcock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 22 May 2001 14:01:53
>On Tue, 22 May 2001 06:38:17 -0400, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>>
>>> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>> [snip]
>>> > > That's because the early 8 bit machines-
>>> > > even the ones that had rudimentary
>>> > > operating systems- were too small for
>>> > > meaningful database work.
>>> >
>>> > 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 know this is .advocacy Rick but just calm down and read what the man
>wrote:
>"I ... do not call word processing or spreadsheets ... database work"
Alas, if only it weren't already pretty clear that believing Daniel
meant what he wrote or could defend it if pressed, your advice might
make sense.
Frankly, I'm amazed at the restraint Rick has shown in being able to
continue the discussion in the face of Daniel's obviously intentional
and unremitting ignorance.
If he doesn't sound calm here, it is because he is well aware that
Daniel has been playing games and twisting his words, changing both the
context and the premise of the discussion independent of meaning or
reason in an apparently purposeful effort to evoke emotional reactions
from Rick.
If you want to try to chastise someone, let's not blame Rick for losing
his cool in the face of Daniel's dishonesty. If you're going to correct
Rick in any way, the only acceptable form would be simply "Please Don't
Feed the Trolls".
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 00:40:58 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 21 May 2001
>"Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:Kb1O6.15716$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > > I don't quite get it. The C64 was slower; why prefer it?
>> > > >
>> > > Price and everyone one I knew had a C64.
>> >
>> > It held on for a while on its price, but in the long
>> > run PCs came down.
>> >
>> Yep, all of the 80s. Prices never came down until very recently to the
>> level of a C64 price, even then it was still more expensive.
>
>Weeeell. I daresay that by 1989, if you could
>find a original IBM PC 5150, it would be cheaper
>than a C64. It would also be older, of course;
>you could still buy a new C64 then, couldn't
>you?
God-damn you are clueless, Daniel. I *hate* to say that, you realize;
there is nothing I hate more than having to admit that the only reason I
could understand why someone would post something as stupid and silly as
they have (comparing old computer hardware prices to new machines, and
that's just the tip of this iceberg) is because they are utterly and
completely and entirely clueless, or simply such a dishonest person that
they are pretending to be, in order to aid and abet criminal behavior.
Damn you, sir. Damn you to hell.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
