Linux-Advocacy Digest #979, Volume #34 Tue, 5 Jun 01 09:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux on Itanium ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Argh - Ballmer ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Borland drops Kylix Desktop to $199 'till Aug 23! ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (pip)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (Byron A Jeff)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (pip)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (pip)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (pip)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Kernel comparisions (pip)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (pip)
Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do (pip)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (pip)
Re: Windows advocate of the year. (Shane Phelps)
Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications ("wgaf")
Re: Best Distribution? (Richard Fisher)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) ("Patrick Ford")
Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications ("Patrick Ford")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Richard Fisher)
Re: Chicken and egg problem (Gerald Meazell)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: Linux on Itanium
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:07:06 +0200
"Kenny Chaffin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> This could _really_ be the beginning of the end for Microsoft...
It looks like that on this group, people proclaims the end of MS more times
that Apple's death was proclaimed.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:11:49 +0200
"Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fie9o$svi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> : What about D/COM/+ objects?
> : What about SOAP, for that matter? UDDI?
>
>
> These are currently allowed, but shouldn't be. They are known
> loopholes in the current GPL and will be removed in future versions.
>
> OTOH . . . .the GPL may not be the best license for library code, and
> even the FSF has conceded this. That is what the LGPL is for, and I
> believe that calling a LGPL'd library by any means is expressly
> allowed.
No, they recommend the GPL for libraries where there isn't a non-GPL library
already in place.
They recommend LGPL only for those cases where there are already non-GPL in
place.
> : MS has the funds to develop a parallel implentation, most of the OSS
> : developers doesn't have anywhere near the resources that MS has.
> : Hell, I would say that all of them doesn't. Maybe even put together.
>
>
> Coming from someone who by all appearances is a paid astroturfer, that
> is a pretty startling admission . . .
I am? Wow, it must be a really big secret, then, even *I* didn't know that.
How much do I get paid? *When* do I get paid, for that matter?
I could always use some extra money.
------------------------------
From: "Joseph T. Adams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Borland drops Kylix Desktop to $199 'till Aug 23!
Date: 5 Jun 2001 11:16:53 GMT
Paolo Ciambotti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Dave Martel"
: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
:>>Hmmm... You don't suppose this is a prelude to discontinuing the
:>>product, do you?
:>
:> Hope so. IMO Borland's become too much like all the other
:> milk-the-consumer software outfits. I'd rather not see the
:> consumer-as-cash-cow attitude brought to linux.
: And I hope not. A good cross-platform development environment could have
: the beneficial side effect of bringing a lot of Windows programmers and
: their products into the Linux world.
But that would be a mixed blessing at best, unless they came slowly
enough that we could assimilate them into our culture, where, to be
blunt, we value both quality and freedom an awful lot more than people
in the Windows world do, or even can.
Joe
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 12:30:23 +0100
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> Okay, well...
>
> The title of this thread says, What should Microsoft's CEO do.
>
> And here we are talking about OTHER Microsoft Employee's.
Good point :) (threads can stray so much)
> And once again, I think Erik Fuckenbuch is to blame for changing
> the subject on the thread.
>
> Well let's see. What should the Microsoft CEO do....
>
> Ah....
>
> How about spread a bunch of shit about the GPL being a cancer upon
> the world and then BUNDLE something with XP so he lands back in court
> again....
>
> Now, am I going to get a cookie for this?
Well if I were CEO I may well have to do the same, as Linux represents
the first real strategic threat that they can't control. So, spreading
FUD to companies to counteract the IBM standpoint may win the marketing
battle.
But I don't think that people are that stupid luckily.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Byron A Jeff)
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: 5 Jun 2001 07:23:12 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
-daniel wrote:
->
-> I have witnessed first hand how many large organizations can operate
-> for years with completely skewed thinking in place which can seriously
-> block its potential to do better things.
-
-Are not ALL large organisations like this ?
-
-
-> It seems clear to me that this is going on at Microsoft to a major
-> degree with respect to 1) interoperability with other platforms, and
-> 2) with respect to the open protocols and standards which enable
-> technology to progress and develop around the world.
-
-Well, apparently .NET will support Linux.
-
-
But only as a server platform. .NET clients will only be Windows boxes
deepening the monopoly. It's token at best.
BAJ
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 12:33:47 +0100
Stuart Fox wrote:
>
> "pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > daniel wrote:
> > >
> >
> > The core of the OS has not, and should not have anything to do with it's
> > interface utilities in terms of robustness. Here you may insert the
> > problems of GDI being in kernel space.
> >
>
> If you read "Inside Windows 2000", it thoroughly debunks the myth that it's
> bad for stability (from a guy with access to the source, and a guy with
> um... SoftICE)
No I have not read this. It is simple a matter of good practice. If the
GUI is bug free and well written then there is no reason for it NOT to
be in the kernel. But as we all know this is not the current case. OS
theory really relies on taking as much stuff that can go wrong _out_ of
kernel space to protect the system as a whole. If you could re-iterate
the argument made in favour, I'd be interested to comment.
> > M$ cares about PROFITS not USERS. Of course it will listen to some
> > extent to it's users, but only to keep them from the alternatives.
> > Anything more is a waste of money.
> >
> Have you thought about where their profit comes from? That's right, their
> users. If they don't keep them happy, they'll lose them.
Will they? Where will the users go to? Will the software they invested
in work? Will their devices work? THAT is the problem.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 12:37:17 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > Basically, the reason is that the way NT is designed, if the GUI subsystem
> > faults, then the OS blue screens anyways, whether or not it runs in kernel
> > space. The OS's main thread drops to a blue screen when the GUI subsystem
> > dies.
> >
>
> Okay, why I don't like this?
> Why would the kernel BSOD just because the GUI crash? It should restart it,
> not stop.
>
> This doesn't sound right, and it's certainly not an excuse.
> It would crash *anyway* ?
>
> Beside, I understand that Win2K2 can boot without GUI.
Good point! It does not restart because it CAN'T. In windows I have had
explorer faults which cause explorer to re-initialise, but a blue screen
by definition means a dead system.
BTW it should be noted by both sides that a graphics driver bug could
cause either system to die a death no matter if the GUI "service" is run
in user-space.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 12:39:05 +0100
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> But MS's price structure is what's started to drive
> them away. The 2nd reason is performance related
> as almost any Linux distro with a 2.4 version kernel
> is 2-4 times faster than the equivalent MS server
> product.
I have not seen those benchmarks. But I would say that users (on the
whole) don't care too much about benchmarks. The ones that do can afford
to assess their particular needs properly.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:42:02 +0200
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > > Basically, the reason is that the way NT is designed, if the GUI
subsystem
> > > faults, then the OS blue screens anyways, whether or not it runs in
kernel
> > > space. The OS's main thread drops to a blue screen when the GUI
subsystem
> > > dies.
> > >
> >
> > Okay, why I don't like this?
> > Why would the kernel BSOD just because the GUI crash? It should restart
it,
> > not stop.
> >
> > This doesn't sound right, and it's certainly not an excuse.
> > It would crash *anyway* ?
> >
> > Beside, I understand that Win2K2 can boot without GUI.
>
> Good point! It does not restart because it CAN'T. In windows I have had
> explorer faults which cause explorer to re-initialise, but a blue screen
> by definition means a dead system.
Yes, the reason this is strange is that I can't figure out what cause this
design decision.
It would make sense on 9x, I think.
But on NT?
Just as a note, what you deribe as explorer faults are not faults of the GDI
sub-system, those are faults of explorer.
But BSODing for the GDI makes about as much sense as BSODing because of
explorer.
Anyone can vulanteer some more info about this one?
> BTW it should be noted by both sides that a graphics driver bug could
> cause either system to die a death no matter if the GUI "service" is run
> in user-space.
Most drivers has this capability, although I understand that Hurd deals with
it, to some point.s
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:42:57 +0200
"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Stuart Fox wrote:
> >
> > "pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > daniel wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > The core of the OS has not, and should not have anything to do with
it's
> > > interface utilities in terms of robustness. Here you may insert the
> > > problems of GDI being in kernel space.
> > >
> >
> > If you read "Inside Windows 2000", it thoroughly debunks the myth that
it's
> > bad for stability (from a guy with access to the source, and a guy with
> > um... SoftICE)
>
> No I have not read this. It is simple a matter of good practice. If the
> GUI is bug free and well written then there is no reason for it NOT to
> be in the kernel. But as we all know this is not the current case. OS
> theory really relies on taking as much stuff that can go wrong _out_ of
> kernel space to protect the system as a whole. If you could re-iterate
> the argument made in favour, I'd be interested to comment.
IIRC, the GDI got into the kernel space because of speed issues.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2001 14:43:59 +0200
"Byron A Jeff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fiff0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -daniel wrote:
> ->
> -> I have witnessed first hand how many large organizations can operate
> -> for years with completely skewed thinking in place which can seriously
> -> block its potential to do better things.
> -
> -Are not ALL large organisations like this ?
> -
> -
> -> It seems clear to me that this is going on at Microsoft to a major
> -> degree with respect to 1) interoperability with other platforms, and
> -> 2) with respect to the open protocols and standards which enable
> -> technology to progress and develop around the world.
> -
> -Well, apparently .NET will support Linux.
> -
> -
>
> But only as a server platform. .NET clients will only be Windows boxes
> deepening the monopoly. It's token at best.
That depend, if MS standartise .NET, then you could write a client to any
platform.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Kernel comparisions
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 12:53:00 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > So, I assume that you're application will use the 'dll and the 'dll will
> > in turn process the data and call the raw IO subsystem.
>
> No, it doesn't.
> As I said, the whole proccess is user & application trasperent.
> You can use fopen(), an it will happen.
So how does the OS know how to use the wizzbang encryption fopen() and
not the standard fopen() ? (ok I am being facetious here - but read on
and you'll get my point)
> > If so then could you
> > not take the SAME argument and apply it to Linux ?
>
> No. I don't think that Linux has layered i/o.
Hmmmm. Is this not semantics ? If the module has the same *interface* as
the standard *interface* they why is there *any* difference. With a
modular system you can therefore produce a layered system (I refer you
to page 437 of Linux Core Kernel Commentary "So, Is it Layered, Modular
or what" : basically saying that Linux can be made to produce either
paradigm for the programmer).
What matters to the programmer is a clean and consistent interface. So,
the central issue is that given that I have shown that this is possible
with the simple use of dynamic modules, how is this totally substandard
to the way NT does it ? As a programmer, what advantages does the NT
model provide which I could not DO in the Linux model - or do so as
easily ?
BTW: you have not provided any other arguments other than this IO
layering to back up your initial bold clam - so you still stand by it ?
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 12:56:52 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> Just as a note, what you deribe as explorer faults are not faults of the GDI
> sub-system, those are faults of explorer.
Yes you are right, otherwise the system could _not_ continue. thanks.
> > BTW it should be noted by both sides that a graphics driver bug could
> > cause either system to die a death no matter if the GUI "service" is run
> > in user-space.
>
> Most drivers has this capability, although I understand that Hurd deals with
> it, to some point.s
It would be interesting to find out how. At the end of the day - drivers
must be run in kernel space? And therefore have access to every part of
memory to mess up things? Perhaps the HURD somehow arbitrates the device
driver requests and only acts on them if they can be "validated" (as
it's a microkernel and the actual kernel can act as a message hub) ?
Anyone know ?
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: What Microsoft's CEO should do
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 12:59:35 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> IIRC, the GDI got into the kernel space because of speed issues.
yes :) So did the tux webserver - and I think that this is _wrong_ also
:)
btw interestingly enough there is much debate as to apache v tux and
some interesting benchamrks showed that there is only _marginal
difference_ (at first they showed that apache was *better*). Many
threads on this in Linux Kernel Mailing List fyi.
------------------------------
From: pip <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:10:45 +0100
Ayende Rahien wrote:
> > Coming from someone who by all appearances is a paid astroturfer, that
> > is a pretty startling admission . . .
>
> I am? Wow, it must be a really big secret, then, even *I* didn't know that.
> How much do I get paid? *When* do I get paid, for that matter?
> I could always use some extra money.
If you are getting paid - it's only because you are doing a good job!
Calm, rational arguments. It's the kind of thing we don't often see on
COLA.
There are SO many conspiracy theorists aren't there? :)
------------------------------
From: Shane Phelps <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows advocate of the year.
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 22:15:48 +1100
Edward Rosten wrote:
>
> Not all windows advocates are bad.
>
> They are capable of reasoned, rational arguments (though you might not
> believe it with the amount of drivel coming out of people like Chad
> Myers).
>
> I think we should have a Wincvocate of the year nominated (it makes a
> change from nominating trolls).
>
> I would like to nominate Ayende Rahien. If all windows advocates were
> like this, this group would be a much better place. Heck, if all Linux
> advocates were like this, he group would be a better place.
>
It's a tossup between Ayende and Erik F. as far as the regulars go, IMNSHO
> -Ed
>
> --
> (You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.) (u98ejr)(@)(ecs.ox)(.ac.uk)
>
> /d{def}def/f{/Times-Roman findfont s scalefont setfont}d/s{10}d/r{roll}d f 5 -1
> r 230 350 moveto 0 1 179{2 1 r dup show 2 1 r 88 rotate 4 mul 0 rmoveto}for/s 15
> d f pop 240 420 moveto 0 1 3 {4 2 1 r sub -1 r show}for showpage
------------------------------
From: "wgaf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 12:15:29 GMT
"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "wgaf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"LShaping" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> >> Hey Microsoft. A personal computer is not a telephone. It is a
> >> computing device. Computing and communications can be put into the
> >> same box, but they remain two distinct things. If you weld a
> >> telephone into a car, does it become a communications device? Trying
> >> to rename computers is not going to solve your antitrust problem.
> >> Please get a clue and then give us a real operating system.
> >> Thank-you,
> >> LShaping
> >
> >Interesting.... a clueless person is giving advice to an allegedly
clueless
> >corporation. Your knowledge level seems to reside somewhere at the brick
> >level....
>
> It is interesting, but wgaf has no argument so he avoids the subject.
> What flavor of computer aided design is the same as a communications
> program? How about financial analysis? How about word processing?
> Can your braininess see a distinct difference between photo
> production/editing software and a communications program? Computing
> and communications are two distinct programs, clumped together by a
> company which is trashing modular design in order to destroy other
> businesses.
Computers process applications, be that word processing, photo editing, CAD,
etc. Communication is part of computing, be that email, sharing files, etc.
Integrating telephony services with the computers makes sense for some
people. The modular design allows the users to select which feature they
want to use. I fail to see how XP would destroy other businesses. If other
products are better than Microsoft's, then they will have no problems.
Following your logic, then IP telephony shouldn't exist either. There should
be no reason to mix voice with data, right? After all, it might destroy
phone companies.
------------------------------
From: Richard Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Best Distribution?
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:10:18 +0100
Jerry A. Goodson wrote:
>> mail: gerhard <at> bigfoot <dot> de registered Linux user #64239
>
>
> I keep seeing people put different variations of their email address in
> their
> posts. I'm new to the News Groups, so I was wondering if you would
> be so kind as to enlighten me about why this is done? Sorry to be off
> topic, but, if it's a useful News Group hint, I'd like to know it.
This is because of various evil spammers using automatic tools to sift
email addresses from newsgroup postings.
Obfuscating your email address in this way makes it less likely you'll
get put on loads of mailing lists.
[begin rant]
What is the point in spam? - all it achiives is to cause me to hate the
person who sent it, and to associate their product with this hatred.
Surely this is not the sort of brand recognition they want?
When will people realise that spam does not work?
[end rant]
------------------------------
From: "Patrick Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Date: 5 Jun 2001 23:00:08 +1200
Stephen S. Edwards II wrote:
>
> Close. Usually a junkie, or a pot-smoker (ie:
> sitting on the curb of the street)
>
> > > basket case
> >
> > The state of your ex-school education
>
> By what do you mean "ex-school"? Like
> an alma mater?
"ex" means "out of" the same as "extra" as a prefix.
THus "ex school education" is education outside what you learn in school.
Perhaps "street smarts" is a modern synonym .
> If you're making a reference to "crazy",
> then DING!
I beg to differ. The literal meaning is something so badly injured as
being beyond taking to hspital on a stretcher--only a basket will be
suitable to contain the pieces.
>
> > > english muffin
> >
> > A cross between a bun and a cake
>
> BZZZZT!
>
> Nope. It's actually a type of bread,
> which is typically toasted and buttered.
If that is how it is used in USA it's wrong.
> Good guess though.
>
> > > phat
> >
> > No, that has me fair bushed
>
> BZZZZT! It's a term that was created by the
> hip-hop culture. It's means Pretty Hot And
> Tempting.
>
> > > stud
> >
> > Breeding male animal, also man with narcisisstic obsession with his own
> > breeding ability
>
> Well... okay. DING!
>
> But more accurately, it refers to a male who
> has a "way" with the ladies.
I diagree. It's a man who imagines he has a way with the ladies. It's
normally a self bestowed honorific, or an insult if bestowed by another.
>
> > > JAP
> >
> > Obviously a person of Japan.
>
> BZZZT!
>
> Jewish American Princess
>
> Note, this is not considered a racial slur, but
> rather a reference to a kind of self-imperialistic
> attitude in some women.
Hmm I think I maybe did know that once.
>
> > > nuking
> >
> > Attack with nuclear weapons or heat in Irish-Japanese oven (Michael
> O'Wave)
>
> DING!
>
> > > whoopass
> >
> > Some obscene and distasteful student party tribal ritual
>
> BZZZT!
>
> To beat up; kick one's ass; etc.
We have laws against that type of thing. Anyone being cruel to an ass, a
mule ot a horse will get their arse kicked.
>
> > > axe n' amp
> >
> > Nope . . .
>
> BZZZT!
>
> Guitar and amplifier.
>
> > > tube
> >
> > Dunno. Can of beer?
>
> BZZZZT!
>
> Telly.
Really? That fell into disuse about 1965 here.
>
> > > grunge
> >
> > Ragged & rough, tending towards unclean
>
> BZZZT!
>
> Rock/punk based out of Seattle,Washington.
No no no! Grunge is a way of life, and the music is just a tiny part of it.
It was a style of clothing before it got connected with latter-day punk.
Grunge occured when torn and dirty clothing and declining punk culture
became chic uptown.
>
> > > lemon
> >
> > Ratshit purchase from a car dealer
>
> DING!
>
> Quite good. I applaud your answering a challenge
> (not that it was much of one, I gather).
>
> > > You might know some, or all of these terms,
> > > but my point is, every culture has terms
> > > and phrases that they use, and scoffing at
> > > someone just because they aren't familiar
> > > with your culture is just as bigoted as
> > > someone scoffing at you because _of_ your
> > > culture.
> > >
> > > Us Yanks don't typically use words like
> > > "roller", or "rogering", or "doxy", or
> > > "flat", or "taking the piss" regularly.
> >
> > But you (collectively) do very regularly use terms that are comon only in
> > USA. So don't squeal as soon as someone uses just ONE phrase that you
> > don't know.
>
> I wasn't making a stink because it was an unused phrase.
> I was making a stink because you were acting like a
> wanker just because someone who is not from your continent
> didn't pick up on your culture's nuances.
>
> > > So lay off, Newzy.
> >
> > The rest of the world has been putting upwith your Seppo cultural
> > arrogance without a murmer for years. You don't like it when it's thrown
> > back at you as a joke do you? Squeal like a stuck pig don't you?
>
> I'm not squealing at all. I'm just exposing you
> for your arrogance, and nothing more.
>
> And exactly how are Americans openly arrogant to
> our allied continents? Can you provide an example?
> I've never been rude to any other culture except for
> the French... but don't we all hate them anyway? *grin*
>
> *sigh*
>
> I often gather that the ingenious way of American
> life has most other cultures so green with envy,
> that all they can put forward is snot.
>
> > > > "WTF?", a Seppo abbreviation for "What the fuck?"
> > >
> > > No. WTF is an internet abbreviation for "What The Fuck?"
> > > You know, that thing that us dumb Yankies developed as DARPAnet.
> >
> > WTF are "Yankies"? Do you mean Seppos?
>
> What? You don't know? What, have you been living
> in a monastery? Well, if you're going to squeal
> about it, I guess I'll tell you. *grin*
>
> English folk oft refer to us as Yanks, or Yankies...
How can I be expected to know what the bloody Poms call you? (Incidently,
it's Yankees, not Yankies)
> you know, as in Yanky Doodle Dandy.
Not quite. It's only ever been spelled Yankee.
>
> What? You don't know what Yanky Doodle Dandy is?
> Have you been living in a monastery?... ad
> nauseum.
>
> Shoe. Foot. Ow.
>
> I'm not trying to ruffle your feathers... just
> making a point.
Can I have my hook back now please?
--
--
My domain contains .co, not .com as appears in the header.
Patrick Ford Auckland, Aotearoa (New Zealand)
------------------------------
From: "Patrick Ford" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications
Date: 5 Jun 2001 23:03:28 +1200
LShaping wrote:
>
> Whoever is guiding Microsoft's attorneys does not understand that it
> is in a court of law.
I can't believe that a crook with the resources that Microsoft has would
obtain incompetent legal services. I'm sure they all sorts of stuff up
their sleeves that nobody can even begin to suspect.
--
--
My domain contains .co, not .com as appears in the header.
Patrick Ford Auckland, Aotearoa (New Zealand)
------------------------------
From: Richard Fisher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Tue, 05 Jun 2001 13:21:14 +0100
Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
> <snip bigoted ranting>
And there's the fundamental problem with democracy - people like Aaron
get to vote.
I think giving such narrow-minded fools an equal say in what is in the
best interests of everyone is dangerous.
I wonder why any thread on this newsgroup seems to end up with Aaron
spouting crap about the evils of homosexuality - methinks he is obsessed.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Gerald Meazell)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Chicken and egg problem
Date: 5 Jun 2001 05:25:32 -0700
<johnbrowne> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8jRS6.6542$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > "Gerald Meazell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
I didn't want to start a thread about why OS/2 failed to take the market. That
is a discussion that has been beaten to death (although it might be instructive
to Linux advocates). My point was that the article in question asserted that
all you needed to succeed from an OS standpoint was backward compatibility
with the majority of apps. If that was true, OS/2 would have taken the market.
It didn't so I assert that the article has a flawed premise. If the premise is
flawed, does the article have any merit?
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
