Linux-Advocacy Digest #32, Volume #35 Thu, 7 Jun 01 16:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: MS at it again ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: UI Importance (Macman)
Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again) (flatfish+++)
Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again) (flatfish+++)
Re: I propose a GPL change... ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (The Ghost In The
Machine)
Re: Why should an OS cost money? (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Christopher L. Estep")
Re: Windows advocate of the year. ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: UI Importance ("Stuart Fox")
Re: UI Importance ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Windows advocate of the year. ("Stuart Fox")
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! ("Christopher L. Estep")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:18:17 GMT
"Craig Gullixson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fo7lo$2eqd$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <9CCT6.24791$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Quantum
Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >"Rotten168" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Stephen Edwards wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Seven rabid koala bears with eucalyptus spittle dribbling from their
> >> > mouths told me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (drsquare) wrote in
> >> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >> >
> >> > >On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 08:34:09 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> >> > > ("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >>
> >> > >>F-117A A is a BOMBER, not a fighter.
> >> > >
> >> > >How is that relevant to the US inventing the stealth fighter?
> >> >
> >> > It isn't. And he's still wrong. The
> >> > "F" denotes "Fighter".
> >>
> >> It's odd, but the F117 has no abilities to attack other aircraft at all
> >> AFAIK, but it is designated as a fighter. Anyone know why that is?
AFAIK
> >> the Stealth bomber is the B1.
> >>
> >I believe it was developed as a fighter and support for the B2 bomber,
but
> >it current role is as bomber.
>
> [snip]
>
> The stealth bomber is the B2.
"B2 bomber" is what I said. F117 current role is a bomber, also, I guess
I should have said 'light bomber'.
>
> The development of the F117 predates the B2 by at least a decade
> [AFAIR, development of the technology dates to the late '60s, which,
> AFAIK, even predates development on the B1]. My guess is that the Air
> Force found it had a invisible plane about the size of a fighter so it
> called it a fighter. The program was black black, with operational
B1B - June 1985
B2 - Decmeber 1983
F117A - 1982
I guess your right and the Air Force's web site is wrong? I don't know
when the technology was developed, all I know is when it was deployed.
Most of the technology is decades old, the Military nevers shows the
people what they are doing right now but I would have thought you knew
that....
> aircraft flying around for more than a decade before a picture was
> released. Speculation is that this aircraft was really the
> hypothetical F19 and the name was changed to the F117 so that the
> denials that there was never a F19 were true.
>
Most 'Skunk Works' projects fly for more than a decade before they are shown
to the public.
> Anyway, AFAIK, there is nothing in its design that prevents its use as
> a fighter, and I suppose that it could be used in such a role against
> high value targets, such as an equivalent of the AWACS. So yes, it
> really is currently used as a light bomber, probably because it took
> some time for the Air Force to figure out how to use a small invisible
> aircraft.
>
I think the Air Force wanted an invisible fighter, but realized it would
work better as a bomber. Atleast thats the impression I get when I read
all the web pages and other sources about it.
------------------------------
From: "Quantum Leaper" <[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: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:19:23 GMT
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Wed, 06 Jun 2001 23:00:31 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Edwards)) wrote:
>
> >Seven rabid koala bears with eucalyptus spittle dribbling from their
> >mouths told me that [EMAIL PROTECTED] (drsquare) wrote in
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> >>>F-117A A is a BOMBER, not a fighter.
> >>
> >>How is that relevant to the US inventing the stealth fighter?
> >
> >It isn't. And he's still wrong. The
> >"F" denotes "Fighter".
>
> Looks like Kulkis loses again.
No, currently the F117A is being use as a light bomber.
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS at it again
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:22:17 -0500
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <3fET6.8767$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> Just goes to show ya that MS does steal code after all.
> >> And hide it under the proprietary software guise.
> >
> >Patent infringement is *NOT* copyright infringement. Violating a patent
> >doesn't have anything to do with "stealing code".
> >
> How can a software patent infringement not involve code ?
I didn't say that. I said it doesn't have anything to do with "stealing
code". Obviously code is written, and without the code you couldn't have
any infringement, but two people can write completely different code and
still violate the patents of the other.
> Erik, you need to think harder before you post.
Irony at its finest.
------------------------------
From: Macman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:22:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:10:39 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 08:32:18 -0700, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> > (Josiah Fizer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 12:52:04 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >>wrote:
> >
> >>>>What's the point of man pages?
> >>>
> >>>To find out things about things?
> >>
> >>admin@Trillian ~> man things
> >>No manual entry for things.
> >>
> >>Seems to not work.
> >
> >You must not have things installed then.
>
> I cant find a things.pkg for Soalris 8, and I'm too lazy to recompile
> it. I'll just have to get by using stuff.
>
Don't waste your breath. drsquare has already shown his complete
inability to understand sarcasm.
I enjoyed your 'man things' post, though.
------------------------------
From: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:23:36 GMT
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:10:33 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 12:06:10 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 12:51:59 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>wrote:
>
>>>Why would you want a token ring card in the first place?
>>
>>It was for a friend of mine, his office uses TokenRing,
>
>May I ask why?
They are an all IBM shop and have been TR for years.
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Compiling Knews was: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:25:53 GMT
On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:10:35 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>I doubt they'd be reading linux text files through windows. More
>likely would be that they would have some html or pdf files, which
>windows can't cock up.
How else are they going to read them since they haven't installed
Linux yet?
Unless they have a Mac.
Duuuhhh.
>>No wonder Linux CD's get thrown in the trash before they even have a
>>chance.
>
>And no wonder many of your posts get thrown straight into the killfile
>before they even have a chance.
Doesn't bother me a bit.
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I propose a GPL change...
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:26:07 -0500
"Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <79ET6.8765$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >"Terry Porter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> How can Microsoft expect Windows pirates to feel the least
> >> bit guilty, when MS are themselves pirates on a mammoth
> >> scale?
> >
> >Patent infringement is not copyright infringement.
> As a sock puppet Erik adheres to the MS view that "Copyright
> trumps everything". Including anything mentioned in The Bill
> of Rights and all laws such as the Sherman Antitrust Act.
What? I'm simply saying that violating a patent is not copyright
infringement. Nothing is being "trumped".
> This ignores that a copyright on code you are not allowed to see
> makes avoiding infringement much harder but that is OK if MS
> ideas are being shielded. It only turns bad when GPL code authors
> want the same protection.
You don't need to see the source to know if you are violating a patent,
since the source is irrelevant to the patent. You can have different source
and still violate the patent (and in most cases, this is the case).
> Erik, feel free to expand on any of that with appropriate quotes
> from microsoft.com
Sadly, patents have become shields. Instead of gaining patents on truly
inovative technologies, companies (including MS) get patents to protect them
from being sued by others. I know of no case of MS *EVER* suing a company
over patent infringement, despite their having thousands of patents.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:31:27 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, drsquare
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Thu, 07 Jun 2001 12:52:05 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Thu, 07 Jun 2001 04:27:01 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> ("Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>>> Why are they so threatening? I'd be more threatened by a
>>> vixen who's 6'5", statuesque, chasing me with a leather whip/bolo,
>>> a fedora, leather vest, and leather hip waders, than some homosexual
>>> in a bar sipping whatever and trying to proposition some of the other
>>> gentlemen there. And yet, the gentlemen will flock to the
>>> quasi-Amazon [+] to attempt to seduce her (good luck, guys; you'll
>>> need it!) and to the homosexual to beat him to a bloody pulp with
>>> a baseball bat.
>
>
>>I have no desire to engage in violence. I merely wish to convince
>>them to stop committing suicide by virus.
>
>How does being queer equate to commiting suicide by a virus?
That should be extremely obvious, although the logic is very questionable.
The misconception amongst the bigots appears to be that AIDS was
found first by gays, perhaps even *created* by gays, and spread primarily
by homosexual activity. (All three of these statements are most
definitely wrong, although in the US AIDS was found first in the gay
community, IIRC.)
And then there's the question of how bad suicide is for a society.
While I can't say I'd encourage suicide, I could think of worse
things, like some schmuck that runs around with a fully automatic
weapon indiscriminately shooting up households. (This is, BTW,
an improper use of said fully automatic weapon; their primary use
is in war to keep the enemy honest. :-) )
At worst, one might have to deal with the smell and pathogens
of a single dead body, in the case of someone doing oneself in.
(There might be issues consoling the loved ones, as well.)
Now murder-suicide is a fish of a different color; that's
basically murder and should be actively prevented. (Not that
suicide shouldn't be, but it's a lower priority; however,
suicide is most likely a cry for help and/or a request for
attention, and should be dealt with as such.)
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 38d:06h:17m actually running Linux.
This message is way too short to tell you the wonderful ...
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Why should an OS cost money?
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:34:34 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Mon, 28 May 2001 23:55:54 GMT
<slrn9h5p23.3gt.The.Central.Scrutinizer.wakawaka@C1459607-A\
.arvada1.co.home.com>:
>On Mon, 28 May 2001 18:01:21 -0400, Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>mlw wrote:
>>>
>>> If one thinks about the history of man, and the nature of invention,
>>> one must ask themselves why an OS costs any money.
>>
>>Tech support and media costs.
>
>media costs? MS media costs more than linux media?
Not OS distribution media. *Advertising* media.
After all, somebody's gotta pay for all of those strange commercials. :-)
How Microsoft justifies the customer paying for them, I'm not sure....
>
>I guess being incredibly bloated and requiring 50 discs for an install my
>justify costing $5.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 38d:08h:48m actually running Linux.
We were born naked, but we don't usually die naked. Why?
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 19:34:47 GMT
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:v%vT6.6328$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:LneT6.55484$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [snip]
> > And WFC, like MFC before it, isn't even solely a Microsoft creation. In
> the
> > case of MFC, the other partner was (surprise) SYMANTEC (who made a
pretty
> > decent compiler for C++ called Symantec C++; is it still available?).
>
> I dunno. But I didn't know they had anything to do with
> MFC; I suppose this means there's someone to blame
> other than Microsoft. :D
>
> > In
> > the case of WFC, the other partners include Sybase and (don't laugh!)
IBM.
> > DB/2 Universal includes the WFC for creating native DB/2 databases for
> > Windows 2000 deployment; so does Sybase in the last two iterations of
SQL
> > Server.
>
> This I find quite surprising. As I understand it *only* Microsoft's
> Java compiler and VM can use WFC, because only they support
> MS's "delegates" feature, upon which WFC depends rather
> heavily.
That is only because Symantec's Java machine (which Netscape licenses) for
some strange reason does *not* support the WFC delegates feature (even
though Symantec could have done so, as they are one of WFC's creators).
>
> Nor do I see how WFC could benefit DB/2 Universal. I
> understand that one could write a Java program that
> emits a DB/2 database file, but I don't see why you'd
> want to, or why using WFC would make that easier.
To mirror the same functionality provided by Enterprise JavaBeans (which
Sun, among others, has been hawking) but in a more memory-efficient manner.
>
> > Microsoft could *not* have succeeded with Windows without the help of
> > application and development tool creators *other* than itself...and they
> > know it.
>
> Why not? So far you've claimed that MS partnered with others
> to produce MFC and WFC, but this hardly suggests that it would
> have been prohibitively difficult to do it themselves.
I'm not saying that it would have been prohibitively difficult; I'm simply
saying it wouldn't have made smart business sense. Also, there was already
a hue and cry (largely from IBM) about Microsoft's development tools being
Windows-only (at the time this was going on, Windows 95 was in development,
and if you were talking about 32-bit Windows, you were referring to NT).
The core MFC creators/licensees (Microsoft and Symantec) also licensed MFC
to other development tool creators (Borland, Powersoft, Sybase, and IBM,
among others).
>
> Who knows? MFC might have sucked less had MS done it
> entirely on their own. :D
Symantec was part of MFC from the beginning. In fact, Central Point
Software used Symantec development tools to create PC Tools for Windows.
Microsoft was also sensible enough to realize that some developers didn't
want any part of Microsoft development tools for reasons having nothing to
do with their quality (or perceived lack of it). Microsoft concentrated
mostly on the higher-order languages (C++, Cobol. Fortran, etc.). It took
Windows 95 for Microsoft to release Visual Basic upon an unsuspecting
planet.
>
> > Application *and* development tool creators/vendors are what keep any OS
> in
> > business.
>
> Yes, but MS can handle the development tool end of it
> *themselves*. They cannot handle more than a small fraction
> of the applications.
True, they *could* handle it all themselves. They now have development
tools *across* the spectrum of tool users (newbies to enterprise). But why
*do* it alone if you don't have to?
>
> > Linux Torvalds knows it. Bill Gates knows it. And you had better
believe
> > IBM knows it.
>
> I've been rather harping on it, myself, actually. :D
>
> All that stuff about MS's toolchain was
> just because Max does not seem to understand
> how these things work. I thought I'd educate
> him, that's all. :/
>
> > Even the Justice Department knows it.
>
> I wonder. The whole "application
> barrier to entry" argument suggests that
> they don't know it; they seem to think that
> running Windows apps in a compatibility
> box would somehow make an OS
> competitive.
Merely looking at OS/2 should disabuse Justice of that notion.
>
> But perhaps I read too much into their
> arguments. It's possible that they are simply
> looking to break Microsoft, and aren't
> terribly concerned with the sort of esoteric
> stuff we are bandying about here.
>
The majority of Microsoft's antagonists (Scott McNealy and Larry Ellison in
particular) are those who bet on UNIX and mainframes as continuing to carry
the day (both Sun and Oracle have their roots in the days before Windows
3.x, and Microsoft, hit it big)....and lost.
And are *continuing* to lose.
And they have taken the art of FUD to heights even Bill Gates never dreamed
of.
Yes. Gates is arrogant. Yes. Gates is ruthless. Yes. Gates is
single-minded at times to almost the point of paranoia.
And *all* these qualities are the hallmarks of a successful businessman.
And, imparted to the other employees, the hallmarks of a successful
*company*.
Look at IBM in their heyday. At WordPerfect Corporation in *their* heyday.
Even look at *Netscape* and *Sun* (or even *Oracle*).
Microsoft doesn't bar other companies from competing with it. It just
competes those other companies thoroughly into the ground.
That isn't illegal. That is *business*. (And it's what any student of
Introduction to Business could tell you.)
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows advocate of the year.
Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2001 14:35:13 -0500
"Robert Morelli" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> Wasn't "Barkto" posting on something like a newsgroup? A couple
> of years ago, the man who headed the shill division (whatever they
> called it) when Barkto was active gave an interview. He said he lead
> 50 people. I'm sure it's larger than that now. Considering Linux is
> now enemy number 1, a fair proportion must be doing Linux. Where
> do you think they're posting?
Actually, it was on Compuserve, nearly 10 years ago.
> One reason I suspect "Funkenbusch" is that the name sounds a little
> contrived in the same way "Barkto" was. Don't you think "Funkenbusch"
> could be a modification of "Fuckin' Bullshit"? Microsoft humor?
*sigh*
I've been on the newsgroups for over 10 years. My name is real. All you
have to do is search a little bit and you'll find plenty of my family
members, such as Paul, who is a professor at the University of Rochester.
http://www.me.rochester.edu:8080/funkenb.html
Now go away, and stop pretending you know more than you do.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 07:55:41 +1200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [...]
> >Perhaps it's my ancient box at work then - PII 300 with 64MB RAM running
> >NT4 WS. Explorer is useless until the coping finishes.
>
> It is a very arbitrary and random thing. For some reason, people who
> are big fans of Microsoft claim to have never seen it. Well, now they
> admit it was constant on WinDOS, but they claim it never happens on the
> NT line. They use to claim that Win95 did it, but Win98 was immune.
> Earlier, they claimed that although it happened on Win3.1, it never
> occurred on Win95. Previous to that, we were told that this was one of
> the things that Win3.1 "fixed" with its "superior multitasking".
>
Nope, it was present on all versions, except Windows 2000, when they finally
fixed it.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: UI Importance
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 07:57:43 +1200
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fo7c0$n1j$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:9fnbfu$2uvq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Dave Martel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >
> > >
> > > Still leaving lousy shell scripting and a "choice" of only one shell.
> > >
> > > BTW has MS implemented *real* regular-expression matching yet?
> >
> > In VBScript yes. The regexp matching is I believe modelled on Perl's.
> > Since MS push WSH as the scripting tool of choice, this makes sense.
>
> Actually, this is incorrect.
> Windows has a regular expression, it's accessible via a COM component.
> This mean that *anything* on Windows can takes advantage of it, include,
as
> it is, VBS.
Well the regexp stuff is *part* of VBScript, all you need is vbscript.dll to
use them, nothing else.
------------------------------
From: "Stuart Fox" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows advocate of the year.
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 08:01:09 +1200
"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> >I also do not believe that Linux is perfect, and it has a long way to go
to
> >catch up to Windows in basic useability on the desktop.
>
> And Windows has a long way to go to catch up to Linux is terms of
> basic stability and efficiency on the desktop.
Windows has less far to go to catch up in this regard than Linux does in the
usuability regard. Make no mistake, MS are not sitting around doing
nothing...
------------------------------
From: "Christopher L. Estep" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 20:02:44 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Quantum Leaper in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 27 May 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> I don't think any of the sock puppets have ever paid for W2K. They get
> >> it for free, and then babble on about how great it is. Guffaw.
> >>
> >Sorry turkey, me and 5999 other people got Windows 2K for FREE from
> >Microsoft... The problem with Linux is it doesn't support my DVD, and
that
> >makes it unusable to me...
>
> Nice catch; you almost ended up making the entirely UNLIMITED free
> access to Linux (something W2K becomes a pitiful alternative when
> considering) too obvious. The use of DVD support was slick.
>
> Ultimately, I think DVD support on a PC is really pretty stupid.
> Computers SUCK as DVD players, and CD-ROM is still the de facto
> standard. If you've got money to burn on stupid toys, it might be worth
> it. But, only if you got the W2K for free, obviously.
>
Have you *ever* used a computer as a DVD player?
You emphatically state computers suck as DVD players...have you ever used
one?
Or are you so *scared* of the Big Bad Bill that you refuse to touch any
computer with a DVD-ROM drive (most of which are running some version of
Windows)?
CD-ROM is the de-facto standard for DATA because the DVD Recording Forum got
into a needless pissing contest over format standards.
(The same thing actually slowed down the introduction of the affordable
CD-RW drive.).
If it weren't for that, even the CD-RW drive manufacturers admit that *any*
of the competing DVD recording formats (DVD-RAM, DVD-R, DVD-R+W, DVD-RW)
could kill CD-R *or* CD-RW on a cost/megabyte of stoage basis alone.
However, the pissing contest over storage formats (egged on by the Motion
Picture Association of America's concern over copying of DVD-sourced
material) has kept recordable DVD in the professional/studio marketplace for
right now.
(The *same* hting happened with CD-R and CD-RW technology in the early
1990's. A pissing contest over formatting standards for CD-R media, along
with the concerns of the Recording Industry Association of America over
music CD cloning, kept CD recording out of consumer hands for *five years*
after the first professional CD-R drives were introduced.)
Also, merely enabling CD-R/RW support in Linux requires making changes to
your kernel. I know of *no* distribrution that enables SCSI emulation
(which all Linux CD-R/RW programs require) by default. Now here comes
Microsoft (and Roxio) with *on-by-default* CD-R/RW (and DVD-RAM) support in
Windows XP. You can hook your device up any way that it supports;
ATAPI/IDE, SCSI of several flavors, USB, FireWire, even parallel port! Even
easier, you can simply *drag and drop* from a source drive to your blank
disk (or even drag-and-drop in advance and do the actual burn at your
leisure).
Microsoft did *not* claim to have the only operating system that supports
CD-R/RW. However, Windows XP *is* the *only* operating system to have
*genuinely usable from day one* CD-R/RW (and DVD-RAM) support.
Also, here's a cold hard fact: DVD drives for computers *still* cost less
than standalone DVD players for the home. (DVD players for the home *still*
cost above $200 US, while those for computers are about half that.)
Christopher L. Estep
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
