Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

From: "Karen Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine Date: 7 Mar 2006 16:05:39 -0800 Remember XEmacs VS Emacs? Stallman was almost crying because the XEmacs team

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:20:38 -0600, Linønutlinønut wrote: > After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom: > >>> I think Karl should let RMS post his own responses to Usenet trolls, >>> should he wish to do so. >> >> He's crippled by RSI, I believe, so maybe he prefers to leave

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

Linønut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out this bit o' wisdom: > >> In article >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> > > (I am posting this on behalf of Richard Stallman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], at >>> > > his >>> > > reques

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

Linønut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > After takin' a swig o' grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] belched out this bit o' wisdom: > >> (I am posting this on behalf of Richard Stallman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], at his >> request. The "I" below is rms.) > > Sure it is. > > And I'm Tony Blair. Actually, the thought "p

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

(I am posting this on behalf of Richard Stallman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], at his request. The "I" below is rms.) From: "Karen Hill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine Date:

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

After takin' a swig o' grog, Kier belched out this bit o' wisdom: >> I think Karl should let RMS post his own responses to Usenet trolls, >> should he wish to do so. > > He's crippled by RSI, I believe, so maybe he prefers to leave posting to > Usenet to others on his behalf, to save his wrists fo

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 06:19:27 -0600, Linønutlinønut wrote: > After takin' a swig o' grog, David Kastrup belched out this bit o' wisdom: > >> Linønut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] belched out this bit o' >>> wisdom: >>> (I am posting this on

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

After takin' a swig o' grog, David Kastrup belched out this bit o' wisdom: >> Let RMS post himself. > > To change the tune (but not the gist) of the hysterics of a > pseudonymous well-known troll? Come off it. So you are saying that Karl, on behalf of Richard, deliberately responded to a well-kn

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Wed, 22 Mar 2006 10:05:44 +0100: > Alan Mackenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Linønut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 >> 16:54:01 -0600: >>> After takin' a swig o' grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] belched out this bit o' >>> wisdom: (I am po

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out this bit o' wisdom: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Linønut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> After takin' a swig o' grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] belched out this bit o' >> wisdom: >> >> > (I am posting this on behalf of Richard Stallman, [EMAIL PRO

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

After takin' a swig o' grog, David Kastrup belched out this bit o' wisdom: > Linønut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> After takin' a swig o' grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] belched out this bit o' >> wisdom: >> >>> (I am posting this on behalf of Richard Stallman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], at his >>> request. T

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

After takin' a swig o' grog, Tim Smith belched out this bit o' wisdom: > In article > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > > (I am posting this on behalf of Richard Stallman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], at >> > > his >> > > request. The "I" below is rms.) >> > >> > Sure it i

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

Alan Mackenzie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Linønut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 > 16:54:01 -0600: >> After takin' a swig o' grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] belched out this bit o' >> wisdom: > >>> (I am posting this on behalf of Richard Stallman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], at his >>> request. T

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

Linønut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on Tue, 21 Mar 2006 16:54:01 -0600: > After takin' a swig o' grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] belched out this bit o' > wisdom: >> (I am posting this on behalf of Richard Stallman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], at his >> request. The "I" below is rms.) > Sure it is. The substance o

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Linønut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After takin' a swig o' grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] belched out this bit o' wisdom: > > > (I am posting this on behalf of Richard Stallman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], at his > > request. The "I" below is rms.) > > Sure it is. > > And I'm T

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Tim Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > (I am posting this on behalf of Richard Stallman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], at > > > his > > > request. The "I" below is rms.) > > > > Sure it is. > > > > And I'm Tony Blair. > > Do you have any particular reason to doubt him

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

After takin' a swig o' grog, [EMAIL PROTECTED] belched out this bit o' wisdom: > (I am posting this on behalf of Richard Stallman, [EMAIL PROTECTED], at his > request. The "I" below is rms.) Sure it is. And I'm Tony Blair. -- Q: Why does a GNU/Linux user compile his kernel? A: Because he can

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

Proven liar billwg wrote: >"chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > >>>If it does the job $10,000 better, sure, kelsey. Wouldn't you agree? >> >> But it doesn't, you stupid fscking troll. >> >You only say that because you don't have any real work to do, chris! Dumbsh*t. You made a clai

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

"chrisv" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>If it does the job $10,000 better, sure, kelsey. Wouldn't you agree? > > But it doesn't, you stupid fscking troll. > You only say that because you don't have any real work to do, chris! LOL!!! ___

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

[snips] On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 03:36:03 +, billwg wrote: >>> Well you didn't read far enough, kelsey. You missed the part where >> >> Where you actually demonstrated how XP is faster, cheaper, more >> reliable, >> more flexible, more powerful than Debian, the failure of which would >> be >> t

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

"billwg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in news:7o%Pf.65322$Fw6.36196 @tornado.tampabay.rr.com: > > "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> That's nice. I'm forced to conclude you can't actually support your >> statement, in light of a concrete counter

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

Proven liar billwg wrote: >Well, kelsey, you are obviously hopeless, but consider that the >consumers don't see it that way. They see linux as a cheapo substitute >for the real thing. Prove it, you filthy lying troll. The truth is that most are not even aware of it or what it's advantages ar

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:31:15 +, billwg wrote: > >> >> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >>> That's nice. I'm forced to conclude you can't actually support your

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

[snips] On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:00:10 -0600, chrisv wrote: >>You missed the part where all >>those freewares with the cute names just take up space > > Only the most ridiculous troll would complain about the $1-worth of HD > space that is taken up by the "freewares with the cute names" provided

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > That's nice. I'm forced to conclude you can't actually support your > statement, in light of a concrete counter example, so you're admitting > you > were, in fact, spewing complete crap. > Well you didn't read fa

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

[snips] On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:26:11 +, billwg wrote: >> What, you mean XP Home *isn't* commercial? Or Debian *is*? Nope, >> sorry. >> Both wrong. XP is, Debian isn't. So please demonstrate XP is better >> than >> Debian, by showing all the extra apps, reduced restrictions, greater >> f

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

"Mathew P." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> >> XP Home is designed to do what the home user wants to do in the vast >> majority of cases. Debian confuses the hell out of the casual home >> user >> and is a poor choice for the fraction of the market where the >>

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [snips] > > On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 03:36:59 +, billwg wrote: > >> >> Commercial software has to work better or else customers will not pay >> for it. > > Hmm. Debian's not commercial. Debian offers me all of tha

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

On 2006-03-10, billwg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:31:15 +, billwg wrote: >> >>> >>> "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] That's

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

Proven liar billwg wrote: >>> Only the most ridiculous troll would complain about the $1-worth of HD >>> space that is taken up by the "freewares with the cute names" >>> provided >>> by most Linux distributions. >> >> ... not to mention turn around and argue a $300-or-so retail package >> is >

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [snips] > > On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 14:00:10 -0600, chrisv wrote: > >>>You missed the part where all >>>those freewares with the cute names just take up space >> >> Only the most ridiculous troll would complain about the

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

On Thu, 09 Mar 2006 19:31:15 +, billwg wrote: > > "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >> >> That's nice. I'm forced to conclude you can't actually support your >> statement, in light of a concrete counter example, so you're admitting >> you >> w

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

Proven liar billwg wrote: >Well you didn't read far enough, kelsey. Well you haven't stopped lying, billwg. >You missed the part where all >those freewares with the cute names just take up space Only the most ridiculous troll would complain about the $1-worth of HD space that is taken up by

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

"Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > [snips] > > On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:38:47 +, billwg wrote: > >> > presentation >> style> > > What, you mean XP Home *isn't* commercial? Or Debian *is*? Nope, > sorry. > Both wrong. XP is, Debian isn't. So ple

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

Karen Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 7 Mar 2006 16:05:39 -0800: > Tried running a modern game in Cedega and it worked. In Wine it seg > faulted. Cedega is a commercial closed source port of Wine. Wine is > free. Never heard of Cedega. Haven't a clue how you'd even pronounce it. I do hope y

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> billwg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Dumb ass. You need something to generate DOC files. That could be >almost any WP made today, including OO. The broadband comment is >totally looney, too. At least there *is* Free Sof

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 2006-03-08, billwg spake thusly: > > "Kelsey Bjarnason" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message - ---8<- >> Hmm. Debian's not commercial. Debian offers me all of that, and a >> hell >> of a lot more

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

[snips] On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 18:38:47 +, billwg wrote: > style> What, you mean XP Home *isn't* commercial? Or Debian *is*? Nope, sorry. Both wrong. XP is, Debian isn't. So please demonstrate XP is better than Debian, by showing all the extra apps, reduced restrictions, greater flexibili

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

Proven liar billwg wrote: > XP Home is designed to do what the home user wants to do in the vast > majority of cases. Not true, stupid troll. In fact it comes with almost no applications. Compared to what Debian (ot most any other Linux) has, it's downright pathetic. _

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

On Wednesday 08 March 2006 18:38 billwg wrote: > XP Home is designed to do what the home user wants to do in the vast > majority of cases. Debian confuses the hell out of the casual home user > and is a poor choice for the fraction of the market where the simplicity > of XP Home is a strong advan

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

"Ron House" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > billwg wrote: > >> OSSers are quick to say that people using Windows and commercial apps >> are stupid and/or being forced to use Windows and the commercial apps >> by some nefarious but unexplainable mechanism operated i

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

[snips] On Wed, 08 Mar 2006 03:36:59 +, billwg wrote: > > Commercial software has to work better or else customers will not pay > for it. Really. Good. Explain to me where I buy a copy of XP Home - you know, the cheap one, but still commercial, hence, by your statement above, better than

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

billwg wrote: OSSers are quick to say that people using Windows and commercial apps are stupid and/or being forced to use Windows and the commercial apps by some nefarious but unexplainable mechanism operated in secret by Bill Gates to control minds. The mechanism's perfectly easy to underst

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

"ray" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Right. All commercial software is better than all free software. And > the > immediate corollary is that the more expensive the software, the > better it > is. > Commercial software has to work better or else customers will n

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:05:39 -0800, Karen Hill wrote: blah, blah. blah, bah blah... Wonk, wonk, wonk wonk wok. -- Rick ___ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

On Tue, 07 Mar 2006 16:05:39 -0800, Karen Hill wrote: > Tried running a modern game in Cedega and it worked. In Wine it seg > faulted. Cedega is a commercial closed source port of Wine. Wine is > free. > > Commercial for profit developers create software that works better in > Linux than unpai

Re: Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

Karen Hill wrote: > > Until there is a Free Doctors Foundation, Free Food Foundation, Free > Car Foundation, and Free Housing Foundation the will not be a quailty > free software product that is not restricted by commercial interests. > Redhat does not allow you to use their distro for free. You

Commercial code is better: Cedega VS Wine

Tried running a modern game in Cedega and it worked. In Wine it seg faulted. Cedega is a commercial closed source port of Wine. Wine is free. Commercial for profit developers create software that works better in Linux than unpaid developers. The only reason the Linux kernel is even halfway dec