Linux-Advocacy Digest #92, Volume #35 Sun, 10 Jun 01 00:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Argh - Ballmer (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Will MS get away with this one? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Subject: Re: Argh - Ballmer
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:10:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>Said Charlie Ebert in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001
>
>The GPL is a copyrighted [sic] license, Charlie. That is why other
>people think that government-funded development should not be GPLed.
>
>>All software developed by the U.S. Government, written in house
>>or funded and written by a contractor should be GPL'd.
>
>I agree, but obviously not for precisely the same reasons as you're
>imagining.
>
>--
>T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
Explain yourself.
#1. What was I imagining.
#2. What's your angle?
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:20:39 GMT
Said Quantum Leaper in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 08 Jun 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >> >Linux problem is the 'DVD community' doesn't want open source drivers or DVD
>> >> >decoding programs,
>> >>
>> >> What makes you say that?
>> >>
>> >Piracy of films, if everyone could look at the decoding software.
>>
>> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. If your logic were valid, video tape would be
>> non-existent these days. "Piracy" is a bogeyman; only a threat to
>> profitability for someone who doesn't have a valid business model.
>>
>I guess you should explain that to the Film industry. You do realize the
>Film industry, tried to stop Sony from marketing the Betamax.
No, I do not. I do understand that several motion picture houses
preferred adoption of the VHS standard, but I don't bother with such
vague, and all-too-often mythical, explanations of history. What does
this have to do with the very real fact that piracy is a bogeyman?
>Sony won in
>court, so now we have Video tapes.
You have some reference for this? As I said, "all-too-often mythical".
Beta continues to be used to this day within the television industry.
>Just look at what the recording
>industry did to DATs, they killed that format, the Film industry wasn't
>that lucky with Video Tapes.
You're riffing, I guess, or just babbling. What does any of this have
to do with piracy being a bogeyman?
>> >I don't
>> >remember the name of the DVD ripping program but 'DVD community' is
>taking
>> >the programmer to court over it.
>>
>> The name of the program is DeCSS, IIRC. The decode algorithm you speak
>> of has been printed on T-shirts, though, at this point. I think you're
>> a bit behind the times.
>>
>Ahh, you know more than me, since I'm not a pirate. All I remember is
>they were taking the programmer to court.
However you excuse your ignorance, the fact that it is ignorance
remains.
>> >> >so I would say that a problem with Linux.
>> >>
>> >> Why? If they don't want DVD, then why would it be a problem that they
>> >> don't want DVD?
>> >>
>> >If there were open source decoding software, the pirates would have a
>field
>> >day, atleast that what the 'DVD community' thinks.
>>
>> If piracy were anything but a bogeyman, the 'DVD community' would
>> already be gone and forgotten.
>>
>I guess you should inform the MPAA of that little fact.
I will have to wait for history to accomplish that for me.
>> Personally, I am a member of the "DVD community" because I rent DVD's
>> rather than videos from Blockbuster, because they have director's
>> commentary, which I love.
>>
>I guess your definition of the 'DVD commuity' is slightly differnent than
>mine...
I have one. You do not. It is just a vague abstract label you throw
around, assuming it has metaphysical meaning that, in truth, does not
exist. It is the conglomerate of whatever forces for good you are
trying to imagine.
Me, I have a definition of "the DVD community" which is, as you say,
different than yours. Mine is accurate, consistent, and valid: the
community of those interested in promoting DVD. I can think of nobody
other than CD-ROM manufacturers, maybe, who is not included, but it was
your intention to mean just the manufacturers of DVD equipment along
with the producers of content, who promote DVD for more selfish ends
than anyone else in the DVD community.
>> But then, I am not a media corporation trying to profiteer on copyright,
>> like most of the 'DVD community'.
>>
>You may call it profiteer, but they call call making a profit off what they
>rightfully own. Amazing, thats sounds the argument that the Pirates make
>all the time.
That is hardly amazing; I've already explained that these pirates are
just a bogeyman. In other words, anyone who recognizes that they do
not, in fact, rightfully own what they are making a profit on is called
a "pirate". Just as you have called me a pirate, at least three times
now. It is obvious you're hoping I'll be offended by the label. In
fact, it is nothing but a bogeyman; your attempt to cast doubt on my
argument when you can't actually do so logically. A pre-fabricated ad
hominem attack, essentially.
Just as the software developers and what you call 'the DVD community'
use piracy as a smoke-screen for their profiteering. You claim they are
making profit off what they rightfully own. But then why are they not
interested in producing as many copies as cheaply as they can? That is,
after all, how profit is made in a capitalist free market. It seems
more like they are trying to maintain the prices at an artificially high
level (not related directly to the expense of production or the actual
demand). That is profiteering, not profiting.
>> >> >Closed source
>> >> >program are available on the Mac and Windows.
>> >>
>> >> Uhuh, we knew that, what IS your point?
>> >>
>> >It called an example....
>>
>> An example of what?
>>
> Available software...
>
>> >> >> >Since the drivers would have to be closed source and distributed
>> >> >> >as binary only. Something need to be done about it or you will
>lose
>> >> >alot
>> >> >> >of new users, since just about every new computer comes with a DVD
>> >> >drive.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
>> >> >>
>> >> >I guess you never go to Best Buy or any place that sells new
>computers,
>> >> >since last time I checked most of the computers had a DVD or CDRW or a
>> >combo
>> >> >drive.
>> >>
>> >> Hmmm.... Now it is "a DVD or CDRW". Hmmmm....
>> >
>> >No, it both in alot of cases,
>>
>> The case under discussion is DVD. Only DVD. Get it? You said "DVD".
>> Had I known you meant "DVD or CDRW" I'd not have gotten into the
>> discussion. If you want to back-peddle, just say so, OK?
>>
>Consider the DVD is cheaper than a CDRW in most cases, they would tend to
>sell more. You have a wierd sense of back peddling....
>
>> >but most computers let you choose either a
>> >DVD, CDRW or both.
>>
>> I had presumed, in making the claim that you did, which I thought stupid
>> and ludicrous, you had some statistics that refute the fact that almost
>> everyone overwhelmingly, and correctly, chooses CDRW, given such a
>> choice. I guess I was wrong, given your back-pedlling.
>>
>All you need to do, is go to any store that sells computers, and see what
>is currently available. Statistics tend to be outdated anyway.
>Observation can be just a vaild.
>
>> >I know alot of computer have a DVD and CDRW installed
>> >when you buy them.
>>
>> I know of NO computers that have a DVD and CDRW installed. EVER. I
>> have browsed stores, sites, and catalogues, and have never ONCE seen a
>> computer offered with both. Typically, it is an either/or decision,
>> though occasionally only one alternative is available.
>>
>
>After checking with some sites, almost all computer have a CDRW or DVD as
>standard, if you want both, it will cost a little extra. Try Gateway.com,
>I know they have them, also my friends computer came with a DVD and CDRW,
>and I think he got it at Best Buy. I don't remember off had the brand,
>but it may be Sony. You should have said, you own NO computer that has a
>DVD or CDRW. I can't think of any of my friends who don't have a DVD or
>CDRW, most of the new ones have DVD and the older ones have CDRWs.
>
> > >Just check out someplace that sells computers, Max...
>> >I guess Linux users never buy new computers, they just go dumpster
>driving.
>>
>> What gave you the impression I was a Linux user?
>>
>Most Advocates use the OS they Advocate. All it does is lessens your
>arguements.
>
>> I am a Linux *advocate*. I do not use Linux, no. Not at the moment,
>> anyway.
>>
>
>Who uses Windows 95B, that makes you a great Advocate...
>
>> >> >Laugh if you want, but I would suggest getting you head out of the
>> >> >sand first...
>> >>
>> >> Make shit up based on your naive personal experience if you want to,
>but
>> >> I would suggest getting your head out of your ass and getting some real
>> >> statistics first, before saying stupid things like "most PCs come with
>> >> DVDs these days."
>> >>
>> >Just go into Best Buy or someother place that sells computers, most have
>> >DVDs, since DVDs are CHEAP, you can buy a Drive unit alone, about 50
>bux,
>> >16x DVD speed, 40X CDRom, if I remember correctly. They about twice the
>> >price of a CDRom today. The companies are putting them in computers,
>> >today! I know my friend got a mid range P3 computer, under a $1000,
>it
>> >included a CDRW and DVD drive.
>>
>> You still don't seem to understand. The discussion has nothing
>> whatsoever to do with CDRW. NOTHING. Get it?
>>
>DVDs tend to be sold more than CDRWs, get it?
>
>> >BTW I just got done advising a friend on new computer, I guess I have
>> >priced computer a Gateway, Dell, CDW and a bunch more. Like I said,
>> >just about all the computers come with a DVD or CDRW, its up to the
>> >customer. I don't remember any who just had CDRoms....
>>
>> I don't remember you providing even a slight hint that you have any idea
>> at all how many times the DVD option is chosen. It is one thing to be
>> caught back-pedalling. It is something else to be caught back-pedalling
>> when your original point was just blowing smoke.
>>
>So your saying they are SELLING more CDRWs? I tend to lean the other way,
>since DVDs are cheaper than CDRWs. It quite simple Max, if they offer a
>DVD or CDRW as the options, most stores only offer the package that sell
>the most.
>
>> Don't come around here no more, OK? Unless you want a spanking.
>>
>> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
>>
>Ignorance of Max is no exuse.
>
--
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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:20:40 GMT
Said Quantum Leaper in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 08 Jun 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Again, do you have something more specific than the word "most"? A
>> statistic or something, maybe?
>>
>Observation of what is being offered locally and on the web. [...]
You claimed that there were systems being sold with *both* (that means
you get both at the same time on the same computer) a DVD and a CD-RW.
This was incorrect. I am well aware that most systems have one *or* the
other.
>> >and from my
>> >friends, most pick BOTH drives,
>>
>> I've never seen a system available with both a DVD and a CDRW. A DVD
>> and a CDROM, sure. Maybe you don't understand the difference?
>
>Most come with one or the other, and a small cost you can the other.
Indeed. Do you have even the SLIGHTEST bit of information about those
costs, or how often one or the other or neither is selected?
>> >or the DVD since it CHEAPER then the CDRW.
>>
>> Well, you can't write to a DVD, after all.
>>
>Not everyone wants to backup their software, or they want to save money on
>the computer. CDRW tend to be about $100 more than a DVD which is $25 more
>than a regular CDROM, and if you don't want anyone of those you could save
>$25 more.
It is a question of suitability. Perhaps theoretically a DVD is a
suitable replacement for a CD of either type. But in the real world,
one is not a good substitute for the other. Your original point,
concerning only DVDs, has already been entirely lost. You should admit
your mistake and move on.
--
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: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:20:41 GMT
Said Chad Myers in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 09 Jun 2001 18:54:02
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Fri, 8 Jun 2001 18:32:23 -0500, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ("Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>> >"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >> >> What the fuck is a "Penguinista"?
>> >> >
>> >> >Militant, rabid Linux defender/supporter. It's not a derogatory
>> >> >term, but it has become one somewhat.
>> >>
>> >> Who the fuck came up with a term like that?
>> >
>> >It's pretty standard. Anyone who is a militant rabid defender
>> >of something is generally called a <term>inista.
>>
>> Erm, I haven't and I don't know anyone who's ever used such a term.
>> And wouldn't that mean Windows advocates would be known as
>> "shitOSinistas"?
>
>No, because people who use Windows are generally grounded and have
>nothing to prove or attack.
Which would explain why you post to comp.os.linux.advocacy, the
Halloween documents, and why you (and AFAIK, you alone, though other
sock puppets may, as well) use the term 'Penguinista'.
>Whereas Penguinistas seem to be attacking
>something or feel like they have something to prove.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>Windows advocates
>are just interested in realism and getting the job done, not being
>"l33t" or out to prove exactly how much they hate "M$" so their
>friends will like them more.
Guffaw. That explains Ballmer claiming '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]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Windows XP Ushers in New Era of Communications
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:20:43 GMT
Said Ed Mahood in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 09 Jun 2001 13:53:59
>On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 02:13:20 GMT, Sean <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>As Robert X. Cringely has pointed out elsewhere,
>
>"Over time, Microsoft filled [the] vacuum, replacing IBM as the
>standard-setting organization. Microsoft used its control of the
>operating system to define the hardware that operating system would
>run on. Each year Microsoft issues a large document defining what a
>personal computer will be like two years hence. To build a computer
>that is significantly different from this specification is to risk
>being incompatible with Windows, which no PC company can afford. Even
>worse, Microsoft might withhold for noncompliance a company’s Windows
>license. This sure sounds like a monopoly, but legally it isn’t
>because Microsoft does not make PCs.
It may not be a monopoly on PCs, but it is evidence of monopolization.
Whether the relevant market is hardware equipment or the OS is
immaterial, but it is illustrative (and, despite the eminent Mr.
Cringely's opinion on the matter) of just why monopoly is illegal.
Here, MS doesn't even have a monopoly on PCs, but their monopoly on just
a single component of the PC allows them to in fact redefine what a PC
is to begin with.
>There is some evidence that PCs as we know them are going away,
Actually, there is some evidence that the PC as we know them never
existed. It turns out that, rather than being an open standard
microcomputer architecture, it is really just "what it takes to run MS's
OS".
>or at least are being split up into various smaller devices. The idea
>of any information at any time anywhere negates the idea of a central
>PC being the hub around which everything revolves. In the *new* market
>of intelligent and networked devices, Windows need not play first
>fiddle.
Once the monopoly is remedied and OEMs are free to act in their own
competitive self-interest, the definition of "PC" will change. It will
no longer be a hardware architecture, since the architecture won't
matter at all, since Linux will run on almost anything. It will no
longer be a software compatibility issue, since there is no application
barrier to entry, but only a level field of competition. Obviously, not
everything that Linux runs on is "a PC", but there will be no definitive
difference between a PC and anything else Linux runs on. A PC becomes
"personal computer". The distributed node/workstation/desktop thing
that has always been the purview of "the microcomputer", since even
before MS broke the industry with their illegal activities.
--
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
Subject: Re: Will MS get away with this one?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:20:45 GMT
Said Peter Hayes in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 09 Jun 2001 20:05:42
>On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 19:35:39 -0600, Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>wrote:
[...]
>This really sums up all that is wrong with Microsoft.
>
>They produce OSs that brought computing to the masses.
That really sums up all that is mistaken about your thinking.
--
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: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:20:46 GMT
Said drsquare in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 09 Jun 2001 15:58:32
>On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 01:22:57 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (Rotten168 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>"." wrote:
>
>>> While at the same time, with the other hand, murdering people at Kent State,
>>> Grant Park, The Bowery and Washington Square, etc. etc. etc.
>>
>>Yes, but other countries have done the same thing.
>
>What, civilised developed countries?
>
>>> Or LBJ.
>>
>>More of a controversial figure like McCarthy than a human rights abuser.
>>When I think of human rights abuser I think of someone like Idi Amin.
>
>Or LBJ.
>
>>> Actually, the united states has one of the WORST records of human rights
>>> violations of any "civilized" country in the world. We just like everyone
>>> to think its best so that we can get out of paying our yearly dues for membership
>>> in both NATO and the United Nations.
>>
>>Now this is one of those times that I step in and look like I'm being
>>patriotic (I'm not). Saying that the US has "one of the WORST records of
>>human rights abuses ..." is pretty silly without adding any kind of time
>>frame or statistics to back it up is pretty silly, and not adding what
>>you mean by "civilized" makes your assertion (predictably) useless.
>>Would you include second world along with first world? Because human
>>rights in the US is magnitudes better than it was in the former Soviet
>>Union. You're speaking in hyperbole.
>
>I'd hardly call the Soviet Union a civilised country.
Then you're begging the question.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
