Linux-Advocacy Digest #897, Volume #34 Fri, 1 Jun 01 17:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (WesTralia)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Rick)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop ("Laura M. Hagan")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (Herr Maestro Bantz)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:55:46 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
[snip]
> > > Do you? Even Stallman has said people should be able to sell software.
> >
> > Sure. However, that's not what he does- his
> > still is $0. Free-as-in-beer, just download it.
>
> So, what? The FSF doesnt charge, but hey dont have any problem with
> people that do charge for software.
I dunno. They cerrtainly aren't on a Jihad
to extirpate proprietary developers from
the Holy Land, I'll grant you that.
But they do not really seem to exactly
approve of the business, even so.
[snip]
> > There is no difference, except that MS does not usually
> > give its product away. Usually.
>
> OK.. at one time they DID give IE away. Why dont you see what happens
> if you "crip" (did that scare you too) - read STEAL- micro$oft's code
> and see where that gets you.
I would get me in trouble. :D
But the FSF has lawyers too, you know.
[snip]
> > I don't know what you mean by this. "Adopters"?
> > Does that mean companies putting out pro-Linux
> > press releases?
>
> Stupid? Ignorant? Lying? I think lying.
No, I'm just not clear on this.
> Open and/or Free Software
> adopters. Pople that adopt Open and/or Free Software, like IBM, Dell,
> some foreign countries.
Ah. I was right; you are refering to moral
support.
> The EU has just said they think peopl should
> stay away from proprietary software and adopt Open and/or Free software.
They did? I missed that one. SAP must be
turning pretty colors over that.
[snip- IBM]
> And they are adopting it for use.
What are they using Linux for?
[snip]
> > > It DOES give
> > > you an alternative other Open/Free licenses and an alternatice to
> > > micro$oft.
> >
> > It gives me a license I can crib for my own code, yes,
> > but that can be said of MS's EULA.
>
> Go steal m$ code, instead of stealing from altruistic people.
:D
If the FSF wanted to be altruistic, they could
use a much less restrictive license; just because
what they hope to gain isn't money, it does not
mean they are being altruistic.
[snip]
> > People who want to control what their code is
> > used for use the GPL- or a conventional
> > proprietary licensing system.
>
> Stupid? Ignorant? Lying? I think lying. People that want to make sure
> EVERYONE has access to the code.
No. The GPL means that commercial software
developers do not have 'access' in any useful
sense. The GPL is all about confining the code
so it *stays* in the open-source community.
And that isn't even remotely "everyone".
[snip]
> > KDE is more mature, as I understand it. But there reallky
> > isn't *any* GUI library for Linux that rises
> > to the level of the commercial desktop stuff.
>
> When did "good enough" start failing to satisfy you m$ sockpuppets.
A long time ago. That's why we moved to Microsoft
Windows. :D
[snip]
> > > So? Neither is m$ Office, or you wouldnt have updates.
> >
> > Come now, you know better than this.
>
> Dont tell me what I think.
Well, okay, maybe you are completely
brain-scrambled. But I suspect you do
know better.
[snip]
> > I think you'll find that many potential
> > customers are surprisingly averse to using
> > code that is avowedly unfinished. They do
> > not want to be your beta testers.
>
> tell that to m$ customers.
A lot of MS customers feel the
same way.
> > That's the problem.
>
> It's your problem.
No, it's a problem for open source software-
it tends to be less clear where the dividing
line is between "beta" and "release".
[snip]
> > They don't seem to have hit version 1.0 yet, basically-
> > they have not yet reached the point where their
> > creators are prepared to declare them done.
>
> Again...how is AbiWord "bits of GNOME"? And i asked you how abiword was
> unfinished. You didnt tell me... what is unfinished? what is left out?
> Do some research lazy butt.
It's not really a quesiton of "what is left out"; it's
more a question of implementation quality- and
debugging of course.
[snip]
> > That is irrelevant to StarOffice, which is not an
> > OS. A non-windows OS should use *some*
> > control set, though, rather then leaving it to
> > apps to roll their own, as StarOffice does.
>
> So? You said it has a problem becasue it doesnt use window$ control
> sets.
Yes.
> So, Why should a non-window$ OS or app use window$ control sets?
> its not window$.
Why do you use the word "so" here? This question
has nothing to do with what I said. We agree, I think,
that StartOffice is not a OS of any sort.
[snip]
> > > LiNux users view this as good.
> >
> > A rationalization;
>
> I see. You say you can "roll your own widgets" for window$ and thats OK.
> But its a rationalization fo Linux.
It's a rationalization for not having any underlying
infrastructure here. Windows does not need to
justify such a defect, because it does not have one.
> > if they wanted choices they'd
> > want *themes*,
>
> Did you just say there are no themes for Linux?
That's right. I mean "themes" Apple's sense,
by the way, not what Microsoft calls "themes"-
Linux can just about do the latter, albeit through
herculean efforts.
I mean you can't implement a tool like WindowBlinds
or Kalidioscope on Linux.
[snip]
> > > it has lots of choices .. for users, too.
> >
> > No. Users have no choice- they get
> > the widgets developers want.
>
> Then window$ users get no choices.
They can install StarDock's WindowsBlind,
and then substitute in widget sets of their
choice. All apps will use them.
> At least Linuyx users can choose
> between widget sets, and use those.
No. Only developers get that choice.
> They can choose to use GNOME and
> GNOME apps or KDE and KDE apps or use nither environment and use both
> sets of apps, like I do.
They can select the apps that use widgets
they like, but that's a pretty weak substitute
for what the users of other OSes can do.
[snip]
> > Unix offers the *least* user interface
> > choice of any major OS now on the
> > desktop.
>
> Stupid? Ignorant? Lying? I think lying.
You can verify it for yourself. The Macintosh
product that does this is called Kalidioscope;
the Windows one is WindowBlinds, and the
same product is available for OS/2 also.
There is no such product available for any
Unix. It's possible to do it for NeXTStep in
principle, but I believe it was never actually
done.
[snip]
> > > window$ is NOT an "Office" environment. And so what if SO duplicates
> > > Windows Explorer functionality? There is no WE for Unix, and if there
> > > was, that would just be more choice.
> >
> > There isn't. There should be, though, and it's an advantage
> > for Windows that it *does* have this.
>
> It is? How?
It gives every developer a platform to build
on. They can integrate with Explorer rather
than implementing their own Explorer as
StarOffice does.
It also gives users a better user interface;
a sigle explorer to learn, an integrated
desktop to work from.
[snip]
> > > You're using it on window$, arent you?
> >
> > Yes.
>
> I knew it. Im sure you dont see the connection.
They can't be bothered to debug on Windows?
[snip]
> > > How would a Star Office developer know aht Star Office will do? How
will
> > > a GNOME developer know what GNOME will do?
> >
> > I was asking about the former; you told me to post
> > a note on one of the GNOME lists to find out of
> > StarOffice will support Bonobo.
>
> Nobody mentioned Bonobo. You said OLE.
Bonobo is so close to OLE, it takes a chromosone
count to tell the difference. :D
It sits on CORBA instead of COM, but it's so
close that it should make porting easy.
[snip]
> > > So what? It was intended to run as an environment. Open Office is
being
> > > developed to be more component centered.
> >
> > I'm glad they realized that the had made a mistake.
>
> They didnt. It was fince whenit was developed. Times and people's tastes
> change, so Open Office is changing.
When was it fine? The Macintosh Finder was
released in 1983. The Lisa in *1981*. Are you
saying StarOffice predates this?
Because what StarOffice does was state-of-the-art
in the 70s, not the 80s.
> > But bear in mind that MS will not stand still, either.
>
> It will if it doesnt perceive any competiton at all. That's M4's MO.
MS does keep their products moving even so. They
certainly do not have the, er, focus, that they get from
a clear competitor.
Consider a recent example. MS Visual C++, Visual Basic,
Visual Studio, etc, all improved in their last versions. They
got easier to use, they even got new features. MS Visual C++
picked up the abilitiy to recompile the code in a running
program while it runs- that's actually pretty radical.
But they had no focus. The changes didn't add up to
any big picture. Then MS woke up an smelled the
Java^H^H^H^H coffee. Now they are workign on a new
"Visual Studio.NET" produc that rolls all of teh above
products into one, puts them on an integrated virtual
machine, adds a new Java-like language to the mix...
The difference *is* dramatic. But it's important
to understand that MS was not standing still
before this. They just weren't moving in a clear,
coherent direction.
[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: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:55:48 GMT
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Thu, 31 May 2001 21:32:05 GMT, Daniel Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
> > > Really? They don't use Motif or Qt or GTK or Athena? Interesting, I
> > > didn't know that all Unix GUI apps were written directly on xlib.
> >
> > Well, things like Motif can be dynamically linked, yes. That
> > is true of almost anything in plain C, though.
>
> You claimed that Unix *apps* implement their controls internally,
Yes.
> implying that GUI Unix apps are hard to write because you have to write
> your own buttons and sliders and so on.
No. I actualy was trying to say that GUI Unix apps
do not acheive a consistant user interface because
each has a separate implementation for the user
interface components.
I did not mean to imply that every application had
to have hand-coded widgets. They can and they do
use prefab widgets.
> That's false. Hardly anybody
> does that, probably on the same order as the number of people writing
> Win32 apps in assembler.
I dunno. StarOffice *does* do that. So it's not like
nobody is doing it.
> There is not much difference between dynamically linking to libXm or
> linking to USER.DLL. What is different is that there is not "one true
> toolkit". Having one of those is a two-edged sword.
That's not quite what I'm getting it (though it is true, too).
What X needs is not so much a toolkit as a framework-
it needs infrastructure. It does not so much need a standard
widget set as a standard mechanism for working with
widgets, so that whatever widget set is desired may be
used universally.
> You get
> consistency, and you also get stuck with dumb design decisions
> essentially forever.
Well, some of them. IMHO X has managed to get stuck
with dumb design decisions anyway- the decision
to not support widgets in any way in X was such
a decision.
If there were an infrastructure- even if it managed
to avoid setting policy- you could replace poorly
designed widgets with better ones.
> > This is a substantial difference both in theory
> > and in practice. It is the reason why there is
> > no X-Windows equivalent of Kaldioscope or
> > WindowBlinds.
>
> Again, what you are saying is that there is no "one true Unix GUI".
No, I'm not. What Kalidioscope and WindowBlinds do
is anything *but* "one true GUI".
I'm lamenting the lack of an underlying infrastructure
to support widget sets, instead.
> I
> don't know how you would enforce such a thing on an open platform. You
> apparently consider consistency more important. I disagree.
I consider consistancy important, but I do not believe
it must be bought at the price of one-and-only-one GUI.
> In any case, most new GUI development, at least in the open source
> world, seems to be converging on KDE and Gnome.
I wonder which will win out in the end.
[snip]
> > It depends on how the customers define good. But
> > inter-application consistancy is widely seen as
> > a good thing.
>
> I guess that's why so many companies go out of their way to not use the
> standard Win32 controls. Have you used TaxCut lately? I think they
> call that "product differentiation". It also explains why users seem to
> like "skinning" so much.
I think you greatly overestimate the degree to which this
is done.
> UI consistency is overrated, IMO. Everybody nods their head when Bill
> or Steve talks about it, and then goes off and differentiates their
> product.
Sure they do. But it is far wiser to differentate your product
in ways that *don't* disadvantage your users.
> > When I say that functionality is missing,
> > I am presenting that as a fact, because it *is*
> > a fact. There is no real dispute on the point.
>
> Some functionality for certain classes of desktop apps is missing, I
> agree. The main reason for this is that Unix was for a long time
> marketed as a server and as a scientific and engineering workstation
> rather than as a platform for Office-style apps.
Sure. It's good at that.
> I claim that these lacks aren't severe enough to have caused Unix to
> lose out to Windows on the desktop.
I disagree. I've already talked about this recently
on this thread, so I won't burden you again unless
you actually want to hear it, for some reason.
> The reasons for that are mostly
> non-technical. In any case, since the advent of Linux these lacks are
> being addressed with surprising speed.
Surprisingly fast speed or surprisingly slow speed? :D
[snip]
> > > Maybe because it was written before KDE became popular.
> >
> > Why does this matter? They can ship the needed
> > libs with the product, can they not?
>
> Only if they exist. At the time SO was in development, KDE was in it's
> infancy. I didn't say that very well.
Ahhh. That would be a problem. Now I get it.
[snip]
> > I believe they do share some code. But it's certainly
> > not like StarOffice, where most of the UI code can be
> > shared.
>
> And this makes perfect sense, given how much smaller Star Division is
> than Microsoft. They didn't have nearly the resources MS does. No, Sun
> did not write StarOffice, they bought it.
Yes. But while I can well appreciate the reasons why
StarOffice worked out as it did, that does not really
change anything on the ground.
[snip]
> > I do not mean to dismiss it. For some people it
> > matters quite a lot. But you can't expect to
> > overturn MS Office on this advantage alone;
> > MS can always lower prices if they must.
>
> You ought to be able to carve out quite a nice niche though. I don't
> care if MS is "overturned" so much as I care that they can't use their
> file formats to squeeze out systems they don't control. Just having a
> free alternative with 20 or 30 percent of the market would ensure that.
Getting to 20 to 30 percent is going to be a problem, if
all you've got going for you is a price advantage.
It's just too easy to MS to counter that, if they find
you are catching up.
> This is the same theory that says that Mozilla and Opera and such are
> important because they prevent MS from turning the web into an MS-only
> place. They don't have to "overturn" MS to accomplish this.
Well, yes, that is so. They need only remain compatible with MS
products, essentially. :D
StarOffice can do that, sure. Why is it important?
[snip]
> > IHMO, nobody cares about this except for people who
> > have it in for MS anyway; everybody else just uses Word
> > format or Excel format or whatever, and does not care if it
> > is "open" or not.
>
> There's a bigger picture here. Lots of people care if they can read
> and modify archived documents 10 or 20 years from now. Even MS can't
> guarantee this. Can you read a Word for DOS document in WordXP? How
> about a Multiplan spreadsheet or an AutoCAD v1.0 drawing in the
> successor versions of those products? I guess you're really out of
> luck if you have old Wordstar2000 documents.
The last time I had this problem it was converting WordPerfect
for DOS documents into Word 6.
Word did not have a big problem with that.
MS is pretty good about including conversion filters
for a bazillion formats. It is a selling point for them.
> Proprietary vendors can
> and do abandon products. Platform changes do happen. This is a real
> worry for some companies with long-lived products, aerospace for
> example.
Sure. But I see no reason to believe that open source
is any better about this.
> You _can_ read LaTeX documents that are fifteen years old, and Xfig
> drawings, and so on. It seems that open formats have better
> longevity. They can even survive the companies that made them.
It does not seem that way to me, really. There seems to
be a sort of notion in some quarters that old file formats
quickly become unreadable to new commercial products,
but that has not been my experience at all.
> > I do not see that it has any importance at all.
>
> Of course you don't. You speak for the vendor, not the customer.
You are stooping to Rick's level, there. Are you
sure you want to do that?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:55:50 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Bob Hauck wrote:
[snip]
> > There is not much difference between dynamically linking to libXm or
> > linking to USER.DLL. What is different is that there is not "one true
> > toolkit". Having one of those is a two-edged sword. You get
> > consistency, and you also get stuck with dumb design decisions
> > essentially forever.
>
> In Win32, you don't always get consistency either.
You don't indeed. Some vendors insist on
rolling their own stuff *anyway*; most,
however, do not.
It's too much work and has too many downsides,
even if it does differentiate your product rather
dramatically.
> > > This is a substantial difference both in theory
> > > and in practice. It is the reason why there is
> > > no X-Windows equivalent of Kaldioscope or
> > > WindowBlinds.
>
> No, just a fair number of window managers!
That does let you do a *small* part of what
Kalidioscope does- you can change the way
window frames look, and the widgets in the
title bar.
That's something. But it's not very much.
[snip]
> > In any case, most new GUI development, at least in the open source
> > world, seems to be converging on KDE and Gnome.
>
> GTK+ seems pretty cool. Good C code, object-oriented in style,
> a lamentable number of casting requirements, and easy to use
> layouts and auto-sizeing. And it's been ported to Windows, too.
> (Proof of concept is the GIMP and gvim for Windows.)
I've played with GIMP for Win32, and it has an
awful user interface; I do hope this is an artifact
of the porting. But if so, then porting is clearly
problematic.
[snip]
> > > When I say that functionality is missing,
> > > I am presenting that as a fact, because it *is*
> > > a fact. There is no real dispute on the point.
> >
> > Some functionality for certain classes of desktop apps is missing, I
> > agree.
>
> Yeah, like VBA! Whew!
VBA isn't a windows feature, but it is supported
by things like OLE Automation. The Macintosh
equivalent is the "Open Scripting Architecture"
(credit where it is due- Apple had this first); OS/2
had a simpler thing called REXX.
Linux is *exceptional* as a "desktop OS" for
not having this feature- and quite a few others
too.
[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: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 20:55:51 GMT
"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > I assure you, I was not surprised- I've seen it before.
> > GIMP for Win32 is much worse about this.
>
> I'm sorry Daniel, but I learned GIMP on Linux, and am
> glad to see the same controls preserved in the Windows
> version. This is the consistency that Win guys want,
> I think.
You mean GIMP is the same way on Linux
too?
[snip]
> > It appears to be the path of least resistance for
> > Unix apps- they implement their controls internally,
> > anyway, so just make the drawing engine portable
> > and you can be running on Windows in a jiffy.
>
> You're half right. GIMP uses GTK+, which has been
> ported to Windows. It would have been hell to port
> if it had used Xlib directly.
Why? Surely it is simply a matter of running
an X Server, if it did do so?
[snip]
> > Even cross platform apps *can* if they
> > put in the effort- MS Office uses Macintosh
> > widgets on the Mac, for instance.
>
> It's faster to go right to the Win32 graphics
> API with your wrapper, though.
It's easier, anyway. But ignoring end users
desire for a consistant, familiar user interface
is not usually wise.
> > It is the Macintosh and Unix that make life
> > interesting for portable apps.
>
> No, Beavis, Microsoft is the one that went
> its own way. The rest ended up needing
> to follow them, for better or worse.
Hmmm. I take it you feel that they
should have slavishly copied the
Macintosh Toolbox, despite its not
inconsiderable warts, then?
[snip]
> > "Cross platform" doesn't have to include Unix;
> > if you do include Unix, *that* is when you have
> > to deal with Unix's deficiencies compared to other
> > platforms (not just Windows)
>
> This is just so senseless, Daniel.
I don't think it is. You can profitably
port software between (say) the Macintosh
and Windows and *ignore* Unix. If you
do you will have to somehow cope with
the difference between the APIs- but
most of the features you'll be using on
one are present in *some* form on the
other.
That is not true if you include Unix.
> More stuff you said that I'd like to contest,
> but just got home from a soccer game, and I'm
> tired!
Let me know if you change your mind.
------------------------------
From: WesTralia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 15:48:58 -0500
GreyCloud wrote:
>
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, unicat wrote:
> > >
> > > With XP starting at $329 for the upgrade and $580 for
> > > the base, do you realize that it will now cost a company
> > > of 550 computer users a whopping 2.5 million dollars to
> > > upgrade their fleet!
> >
> > Duh! Volume licensing...
>
> Still too damn expensive. The latest report from Redmonds own marketing
> analysts have said that Office XP is becoming too expensive and that end
> users are balking at spending that much money on it. Sales are slower
> than expected during Thursdays launch of Office XP.
Everyone is waiting for Monday's launch of Office XP II that contains
the new and improved Office XP II file formats which will obsolete the
Office XP file formats.
Personally, I prefer having an ice cold beer and putting a clothes pin
on a dog's tail and watching it spin in circles.
--
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 17:02:22 -0400
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> drsquare wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 31 May 2001 19:34:45 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > ("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >
> > >drsquare wrote:
> >
> > >> On Wed, 30 May 2001 18:17:13 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > >> ("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >Grzegorz Borek wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >> 1. This isn't a good comparison because robbing banks is malevolent to
> > >> >> the other _not consenting_ for that members of society. Homosexualism
> > >> >> isn't, so this does not apply.
> > >>
> > >> >Ask the people who pick up Hepatitis from food contaminated
> > >> >by gay restaurant workers.
> > >>
> > >> Please explain how this is relevant.
> >
> > >it's one way that gays and their anal-sex is a public health nuisance
> > >for EVERYBODY.
> >
> > In that case, I guess you're equally pissed off against heterosexually
> > spread hepatitis? If not, why not?
>
> Hepatitis isn't spread through heterosexual sex.
>
> Hope that fucking helps, moron.
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
Actually, certain forms of hepatitis (B and C) can be spread through
herterosexual contact via vaginal or anal sex. yes, men and women DO
engae in anal sex.
Hepatitis A is spread through oral-fecal contamination. Hepatitis E can
be spread through contaminated food. Neither of these is transmitted
through bodily fluids as are B and C, so neither of these has any
relation to sexual activities.
You might want to take a blood-borne pathogen course. They include
information on AIDS and hepatitis.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Laura M. Hagan" <doesn'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 12:33:17 -0700
Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> drsquare wrote:
> >
> > In that case, I guess you're equally pissed off against heterosexually
> > spread hepatitis? If not, why not?
>
> Hepatitis isn't spread through heterosexual sex.
>From the Center for Disease Control
(http://www.cdc.gov/travel/diseases/hbv.htm):
Hepatitis, Viral, Type B
Health Information for International Travel, 2001-2002
Description
Hepatitis B is a viral infection with clinical manifestations that include
anorexia, abdominal discomfort, nausea, and vomiting, and often
progresses to jaundice. Severity ranges from inapparent infections
detectable only by elevated liver function tests to fulminating, fatal
cases of acute hepatic necrosis.
Hepatitis B virus (HBV) is transmitted primarily through activities that
involve contact with blood or blood-derived fluids. The most frequent
mode of transmission is through sexual activity, either heterosexual or
homosexual, between an infected and a susceptible person.
> Hope that fucking helps, moron.
My! Such language coming out of your ass!
[absurdly long and utterly pointless .sig deleted]
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Fri, 1 Jun 2001 16:01:06 -0500
"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, unicat wrote:
>
> With XP starting at $329 for the upgrade and $580 for
> the base, do you realize that it will now cost a company
> of 550 computer users a whopping 2.5 million dollars to
> upgrade their fleet!
Where do you get those figures?
MS hasn't released pricing on XP yet, and those prices are much higher than
the current Win2k pricing (which was the same as the NT4 pricing before it).
------------------------------
From: Herr Maestro Bantz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2001 16:02:28 -0500
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
WesTralia wrote:
>
>
> Personally, I prefer having an ice cold beer and putting a clothes pin
> on a dog's tail and watching it spin in circles.
>
> --
Also try tape on a cat's paw, base of tail or my fav across the forehead and
ears...
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
