Linux-Advocacy Digest #42, Volume #35 Fri, 8 Jun 01 03:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Just when Linux starts getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust! ("JS \\
PL")
Re: IBM Goes Gay (Ray Chason)
Re: Argh - Ballmer (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IBM Goes Gay (Michael Vester)
Re: Laugh, it's hilarious. ("JS \\ PL")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (KJ)
Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!! (Ray Chason)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 05:55:37 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 5 Jun 2001
>"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9fia45$o19$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> "Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:a_%S6.7272$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>
>> > You act as if this is stolen work. The authors VOLUNTARILY sold their
>> > software and/or companies to MS. MS did not do a hostile takeover.
>> > Further, MS likes to buy software to get themselves into the market right
>> > away, then enhance the software over time. MS-DOS 6.22 is virtually
>> > indisquishable from QDOS which was bought in 1980 for instance.
>
>Er.. I meant Is virtually unrecognizable, but it looks like you understood
>what I was saying.
"Indistinguishable" seems more appropriate, though certainly less
accurate.
>> IIRC, DOS 1.0 didn't have directories, it didn't have memory management,
>> etc. There has been changes, but not very much.
>
>Considering that DOS 6.22 is about 10x larger than QDOS, I have to wonder
>how you can say that. I'm not just talking about the programs that come
>with it, but the actual .sys files.
Patching a bad design requires far greater volume than correcting a good
design.
>> > No, he called the GPL a cancer. Get your facts straight.
>>
>> Afraid not, he called "Linux" a cancer, he probably meant the GPL, but he
>> said Linux.
>> Then again, MS is trying to blur the limits between Open Source, GPL, &
>> Linux.
>
>Yes, he did say Linux, but he specifically also said "that's how the license
>works" and the license is the GPL.
So why didn't he say "the GPL"? Huh?
>> > The LGPL is not the GPL. They are incompatible and the FSF discourages
>> it's
>> > use. Further, there are very few LGPL'd libraries.
>>
>> The LGPL & GPL are compatible.
>> The FSF most certainly try to discourage the use of any non-GPL license.
>> And there are 1393 projects on SourceForge alone that are under the LGPL.
>> I would say that this is a lot of LGPL libraries.
>
>You're assuming that they are all libraries. LGPL does not restrict itself
>to libraries.
Do you have some statistics on the breakdown? Considering that the
library GPL is as it is, it seems rather pedantic at best, and dishonest
at worst, to presume that whether they are all libraries is anything but
trivial.
--
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]>
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 05:55:37 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 5 Jun 2001
>"Fred K Ollinger" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9fja2s$9jk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> In fact I've personaly replied to messages of people
>> >> comming on to this news group and spreading fear about the Linux
>system.
>>
>> >That's not MS.
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. How do you know who these people are? I have heard that
>> headers w/ OS/2 lies in ngs have been traced back to MS. It only stands to
>> reason they would do the same for the next compeditor.
>
>Once, about 10 years ago there was a guy from MS who was saying various
>things in OS/2 newsgroups.
Once, ten years ago, MS was caught red-handed paying people to blow
smoke on technical newsgroups supporting competitors. Let's be honest,
Erik. Once, about five years ago, MS was caught red-handed paying
supposedly objective benchmark labs to post bogus results. Once, about
five years ago, MS was caught red-handed forcing magazine publishers to
present their bogus white-papers as objective reporting. Once, about
three years ago, MS was caught red-handed executing a nefarious plot to
pay people to pretend to be "grass-roots" support to object to the legal
prosecution of their criminal activity.
>It's truly amazing how people repeat this stuff without even knowing
>anything about the source.
People repeat what they hear. Does it matter more what the source was,
or what was said? Just because people get the details wrong doesn't
mean they didn't hear anything.
>> MS has a billion dollar war chest which spreads tons of FUD. Never heard
>> a pro-MS person talk about this. Linux people may lie, they may be a bit
>> rought, but they are doing the best to fight a billion dollar beast. I'm
>> very impressed at how well they are doing.
>
>Remember, they have the support of billion dollar beasts like IBM, and SGI.
Indeed; IBM is sinking two billion dollars into developing open source
software over the next three years. Yet the news that this was the case
doesn't seem to have bolstered Linux retail sales. Why is that, do you
think?
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Ballmer tells another bald-headed lie.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 05:55:38 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 2 Jun 2001
>"Ray Chason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
>message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html
>>
>> "The way the license is written, if you use any open-source software,
>> you have to make the rest of your software open source....Linux is not
>> in the public domain. Linux is a cancer that attaches itself in an
>> intellectual property sense to everything it touches. That's the way
>> that the license works."
>>
>> Classic FUD. OK, this is true if "use" means "use the source code in
>> another product." It's not true if "use" means "run the compiled
>> software," an act which the GPL specifically says is unrestricted.
>
>It's unrestricted if you get ahold of it. You have to get your hands on the
>GPL'd software to be able to do it.
Doh!
It is kind of definitive of FUD, maybe, that it tries to say that what
is common and frequent is somehow difficult. Just how hard is it, do
you think, Erik, to "get your hands on" GPL software?
>The GPL only gives you rights to the software you have in your posession, it
>doesn't give you rights to someone eleses software. You can't demand they
>give you their GPL'd software. If you have the software, you can demand the
>source, but that's a different argument.
And what does this have to do with this bogus claim that "Linux is a
cancer"?
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 05:55:40 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 2 Jun 2001
>"pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Mike wrote:
>
>> What is so irrational about wanting tax funded software research to be
>> available to the whole community ? The fact is the the GPL does not
>> prevent companies making money off of it. It ONLY stipulates that those
>> companies can't keep their source code extensions closed to *IT'S*
>> customers.
>
>The problem is that it doesn't make it available to be used by the whole
>community. It only makes it available to be used by GPL'd communities.
No, it makes it available to be used by the whole of humanity. It makes
it available to be exploited for development by only those developers
willing to accept the GPL license.
>> Therefore, if you license under the GPL, the IP and implementation of
>> the research becomes transparent. The likes of M$, who can afford to do
>> so, should make a clean room implementation using just the ideas. Then
>> they are free to do whatever they like. I find this perfectly rational.
>> Why should some large company get a free product which they can simply
>> add eye candy and sell (while closing the source for their users)?
>
>Because the money used to develop it came from tax dollars, part of which
>was paid for by the corporation.
So? Nobody said tax dollars had to provide a return on investment,
believe it or not. The corporations don't have any greater claim to the
benefit of government spending than anyone else. In fact, they have
less. Because "they" have none. "They" don't exist; they are imaginary
"they's". Legal fictions.
The argument that tax-funded software should be GPL might be dubious,
but not on the premise that you've provided. The fact that
corporations, or individuals, pay tax dollars does not provide any
reason to allow profiteering on tax-funded software development.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 05:55:41 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 3 Jun 2001
>"Flacco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:2VoS6.14445$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > The problem is that it doesn't make it available to be used by the whole
>> > community. It only makes it available to be used by GPL'd communities.
>>
>> It makes it available to anyone. They simply have to use it under the
>> GPL.
>
>Re-read what I said. "available to be *USED*" The FreeBSD project cannot
>use GPL copyrighted code inside their TCP/IP stack, for instance, because
>the code is licensed under a non-GPL'd licence.
Yes, they can. They cannot *copy* GPL code in their TCP/IP stack.
>> > Because the money used to develop it came from tax dollars, part of
>> > which was paid for by the corporation.
>>
>> ...which is free to use the software under the terms of the GPL, just like
>> anyone else.
>
>That's like saying a license which requires you to slaughter innocent
>children is free for use by everyone, so long as they slaughter children.
>That's not what you claim.
Jesus Christ, you are a dishonest person, Erik. Slaughtering innocent
children as an analogy for the GPL? What is *wrong* with you?
--
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]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 05:55:42 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 2 Jun 2001
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <F2%R6.16166$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Mike
>wrote:
>> >I think Ballmer has a point. It seems evident to me that if government
>funds
>> >are used to support software research, the results of that research
>should
>> >be, in most cases, public domain. Ballmer's contention is that the GNU
>> >license restricts the use of software, so GNU software isn't really
>public
>> >domain.
>>
>> Incorrect. The GPL license is the ONLY license which should be used
>> on all government projects. We don't pay GOD DAMN TAX DOLLARS just
>> so companies like MICROSOFT CAN POCKET THE DEVELOPMENT MONEY AND
>> COPYRIGHT IT FOR THEIR OWN PROFITS.
>
>Charlie. Grow a brain.
Charlie Ebert - grow a brain? You aren't new around here, Erik. You
must know that is a silly idea.
>It's not just Microsoft that can't use GPL'd
>software.
Microsoft can use GPL software as much as they want, Erik; nobody and
nothing is stopping them.
>Projects like FreeBSD can't use it either, nor OpenBSD, or NetBSD
>or even the X11 Projects.
Well, "projects" might not, but you could certainly develop a GPL BSD,
according to the BSD license. Nobody's bothered. Why is that, do you
think?
>Government funded research should be useable by all US citizens. Period.
GPL is useable by all US citizens. It just doesn't allow some citizens
to prevent others from using future versions. Period.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: "JS \\ PL" <[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: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 01:59:13 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said JS \ PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 5 Jun 2001 23:18:37 -0400;
> >"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> JS \\ PL wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > On Tue, 5 Jun 2001 01:17:08 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> >> > > ("JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >"The Queen of Cans and Jars" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
message
> >> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > > >> Bryan C wrote:
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> I wonder what kind of hardware requirements are
> >> > > >> > necessary to successfully support this feature if nothing is
> >being
> >> > > >> > saved to non-volatile memory as you suggest.
> >> > > >> >
> >> > > >> Reportedly, the hardware requirements for XP, at least in terms
of
> >> > > >> memory, are double those of Win 2K. I assume the HD and CPU
> >> > > >> requirements are also doubled.
> >> > > >
> >> > > >I don't think you can even find a new hard drive as small as what
> >Window
> >> > XP
> >> > > >would require (1.5gb). I don't think you can even find a new
> >processor as
> >> > > >small as what Windows XP will require (233mhz). The minimum
> >requirement
> >> > is
> >> > > >basicly an old computer with (maybe) a $30 memory boost.
> >> > >
> >> > > Why the hell does it require 1.5Gb? I can install linux easily in
> >> > > 500Mb on a 100mhz,
> >> >
> >> > Then do it. Due to the fact that no one company has ever and can
never
> >> > possess a monopoly on operating systems your perfectly free to NOT
use
> >> > Windows XP.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Microsoft does, by definition, have a monopoly in the desktop OS
market.
> >
> >They ESPECIALLY don't have a monopoly by definition.
>
> Not the Webster's definition, moron. The Sherman Act/Supreme Court
> definition.
>
> >There's the convoluted
> >straw grabbing logic that the DOJ and Jackson has put forth which has
fooled
> >some into believing that they have a monopoly.
>
> Yes, there is that, and you haven't refuted it, whether you feel you
> have the right or ability to ridicule it or not. Admit it; you are only
> ridiculing it by pretending it is convoluted, grasping, or in any way
> incorrect is because you are, in fact, completely unable to refute ANY
> of it.
>
> >But (I repeat) they
> >ESPECIALLY don't have a monopoly by definition. As you'll soon see by
the
> >utter reversal by the appeals court.
>
> Tell us, anonymous troll, what reaction can we expect from you if it is
> not reversed 'utterly' at all, but substantially or entirely upheld?
Come on :-\
It saddens me that your that deluded. The upcoming consumer switch to
Windows XP will reign in billions upon billions of dollars for MS and
secures Microsofts 96% market share on consumer desktop OS's for the next 20
years. And it was attained solely on quality and consumer demand.
> Are you going to admit who you really are, explain you've been a
> sock-puppet for an illegal monopoly, and reconsider how valuable your
> purposeful ignorance really is?
Come on :-\
It saddens me that your that deluded. This whole lawsuit has been little
more than a momentary distraction for Microsoft. I still laugh audibly when
I read parts of the Gates deposition. Some of the question and answer
sessions are reminiscent of the Austin Powers/Penis enlarger skit.
DOJ QUESTION: NOW, HAVE YOU EVER READ THE COMPLAINT IN THIS CASE?
GATES ANSWER: NO.
QUESTION: DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IN THE
COMPLAINT THERE IS AN ASSERTION--I'M NOT TALKING
ABOUT THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE. I'M
TALKING ABOUT THE COMPLAINT THAT WAS FILED LAST
MAY. DO YOU KNOW WHETHER IN THAT COMPLAINT THERE
ARE ALLEGATIONS CONCERNING A 1995 MEETING BETWEEN
NETSCAPE AND MICROSOFT REPRESENTATIVES RELATING
TO ALLEGED MARKET DIVISION DISCUSSIONS?
ANSWER: I HAVEN'T READ THE COMPLAINT, SO I
DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. BUT I THINK SOMEBODY SAID
THAT THAT IS IN THERE.
QUESTION: DID YOU FIND THAT OUT BEFORE OR
AFTER THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE?
ANSWER: THE FIRST TIME I KNEW ABOUT THESE
ALLEGATIONS WAS THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ARTICLE,
SO--
QUESTION: THAT IS, THAT ARTICLE PRECEDED
ANY KNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAD OR DIDN'T HAVE RELATED
TO THE COMPLAINT?
ANSWER: THAT'S RIGHT."
(PAUSE.)
**[This is fricking comedy!]**
QUESTION: WELL, SIR, IN MAKING THE
DECISIONS AS TO WHAT YOU WOULD ASK OF APPLE, DID
YOU BELIEVE THAT WHAT YOU WERE OFFERING APPLE
WITH RESPECT TO MICROSOFT OFFICE FOR MACINTOSH
WAS IMPORTANT ENOUGH TO APPLE SO THAT THEY OUGHT
TO GIVE YOU SOMETHING FOR IT?
ANSWER: I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU'RE TALKING
ABOUT WHEN YOU SAY "ASK."
{snippage}
QUESTION: WELL, SIR, LET'S READ IT. IT IS
ONLY THREE LINES. YOU QUITE, QUOTE, I WANT TO
GET AS MUCH MILEAGE AS POSSIBLE OUT OF OUR
BROWSER AND JAVA RELATIONSHIP HERE.
AND WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT `HERE,' YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT WITH APPLE, ARE YOU NOT, SIR?
ANSWER: I'M NOT SURE.
QUESTION: WELL, THE SUBJECT OF THIS IS `FW:
POST-AGREEMENT;' CORRECT, SIR?
ANSWER: YEAH. THAT'S WHAT MAKES ME THINK
THIS WAS PROBABLY POST-AGREEMENT.
I'm waiting for Gates to say something like "I'm telling you man...crushing
Netscape isn't my bag baby!"
DOJ - Well we have exhibit 271- One book written by "Bill Gates" entitled
"Crushing Netscape, this sort of this IS_MY_BAG_BABY"
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM Goes Gay
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 06:15:55 -0000
flatfish+++ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Folks, it's a sad day for IBM supporters because apparently they have
>succumbed to the gay pressure and are mobilizing to support this
>deviant lifestyle.
+------------------------+
| |
| PLEASE |
| |
| Do not feed the troll. |
| Thank you. |
| |
| The Management |
| |
+----------+--+----------+
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
* @ @ ( ) * @ )|@ | / @ \ * * @* * +@
_)_()_(_(_|(__)_)_(|(_|/__/__)(_(_))_(_/)_
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 06:17:04 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 3 Jun 2001
>"Marc Schlensog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Of course they can. They can distribute modules for a certain non-GPL
>> proggie under the GPL license, can't they?
>
>No. A module is just a dynamically linked object file, and the GPL
>specifically does not allow you to get around the GPL this way.
You are mistaken, Erik. A "module" is the object that is linked *to*.
You can distribute modules for non-GPL programs under the GPL, to your
heart's content.
Unless, of course, their is no non-GPL version of the program. Than the
FSF will not allow you to "get around" the intent of the GPL, though
most legal scholars do not believe the GPL itself prevents such
activity.
--
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:
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: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 06:17:05 GMT
Said Quantum Leaper in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 07 Jun 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS \ PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 5 Jun 2001 23:48:28 -0400;
>> [...]
>> >Come on, your talking to a guy that's running Windows 95 and is pissed
>> >because it sucks, but he's too broke to run anything else so he's blaming
>> >Microsoft. That's Max in a sentence.
>>
>> That's the anonymous troll "JS \ PL" in a paragraph. A random insult
>> thrown my way to try to make up for all the spankings I've given you.
>>
>> Guffaw.
>
>Your using Forte Agent 1.8/32.548, which is ONLY available on Windows
>9x/NT. There is NO Linux version of Forte Agent, last time I checked,
>which was a few weeks ago. Unless you care to explain it...
Explain what? I'm using Win95b. Check google; your rant has been done.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IBM Goes Gay
Date: Thu, 07 Jun 2001 16:56:52 -0700
flatfish+++ wrote:
<snip dubious content>
>
> Only God almighty has the power to judge and his judgement is swift
> and fast.
>
> flatfish+++
> "Why do they call it a flatfish?"
Flatfish is religous??? Seems to believe in the nasty and vengeful version
of god. Isn't lying one of the "Ten Commandments"?
--
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: "JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.aol-sucks,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Laugh, it's hilarious.
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 02:43:02 -0400
"Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9fmabf$cmj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> http://www.jokeaday.com/7letters.shtml
>
> It's on a mailing list I'm subscribe to.
> The post-master sent an email about AOL.EXE being a virus, and urge people
> to delete it, and post some of the replies in the above URL.
>
> Here are a couple of the most amusing replies:
>
> "I beleive that this is a hoax. Isn't AOL.exe a vital component to the
> window's operating system? "
>
> "No!! Any file ending in .EXE is a necessary file to your computer.
Wherever
> you got that information they're wrong. You need that file. I have learned
> this the wrong way. Don't delete any file ending in .EXE Please pass this
on
> to everybody."
That's just one more reason why slapping should be legalized!
Had a guy tell me just the other day that his "internet" kept disconnecting
so he went in and started deleting a bunch of stuff from his hard drive and
it's alot better now! I just responded with my usual smiling "yea, sounds
like you fixed it pretty good".
Today I was called to a friends office. They couldn't connect to the
internet. And I quote "Last night at 5:30PM everything was fine! Now today
it won't connect! So I get all fixed up from my slob state, drive down there
to see that the computer IS connected. They explain to me that it cant be
connected because nothing they type goes to the web site's username /
password input box.
Hmm... nothing they type shows up....oh look here........another clue....
the number lock won't light up....hey I wonder if ANY keys work....were the
cleaning people here last night?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (KJ)
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: 7 Jun 2001 23:45:00 -0700
[snip]
> > Word? Word is far beyond what any other previous word processor
> > was.
> >
> > Excel? Lotus 123 wasn't even close.
>
> *SIGH* Word and Excel were NOT always the industry leaders (most
> installations and feature rich). Just because they are today does not mean
> they will be tomorrow.
True. It's hard to posit any one of the products mentioned as being
"at the beginning"; for example, the first spreadsheet to hit the big
time was VisiCalc 1.0 (we bought our first house using it, on an Apple
][ plus). It was followed by MultiTab, an early Microsoft
acquisition. Lotus 123 came out at about the same time as the lovely
character-cell AppleWorks on the Apple ///, which I used as my desktop
machine with a VT 100 emulator. And so on, so forth. Mainframe
products tried and failed to keep up, sinking them deeper into the tar
pits. Remember that for any of these products, the equivalent
dedicated HW product or mainframe implementation was a factor of many
digits more expensive -- there was plenty of room for everyone to be
excited about small system's software. Still is, although it's hard
to call today's PC servers "small" anymore.
Products will always leapfrog other products, or else the history
monks will cull them out. I've gotten over being a platform priest,
it's an ice-age job.
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: LINUX PRINTING SUCKS!!!!!!!!
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001 06:49:21 -0000
Nigel Feltham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>I like beer but for some strange reason I get a bad headache and feel sick
>after just 1 pint so I only drink spirits - I can drink at least 10
>vodka&cokes in one evening with no problems.
Oh, you'll still have problems. You just won't care.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
