Linux-Advocacy Digest #252, Volume #28 Sat, 5 Aug 00 19:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (Chris Wenham)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:46:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>On Sat, 29 Jul 2000 23:55:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] () wrote:
[...]
>>>You mean an adult that doesn't know what Windows is? C'mon, jedi -
>>>you're reaching, even for you. That's absurd.
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>> Most end users are not saavy enough to tell the difference between
>> a wiley window manager or efx or bare windows. Plus, they simply
>> don't understand what an OS is to begin with.
>
>I honestly believe you believe that.
>
>I think that's flatly and absurdly wrong, but hey, more power to you.
I'm afraid you're too far removed from real life, 'dc'. Not only don't
most adults know what "Windows" is, they don't really care at all,
either.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:46:52 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Shocktrooper in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>"josco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Thu, 27 Jul 2000, Christopher Smith wrote:
>>
>> > > I find it rather funny that Mr. Allchin doesn't even suggest that
>> > > Microsoft add innovative new features to IE. He just accepts that the
>> > > best Microsoft can do is "copy everything that Netscape does packaging
>> > > and product wise."
>> >
>> > Integrating IE *was* an "innovative new feature". As was componentising it.
>>
>> Integrating IE was the tactic of a monopolist. It is classic violation of
>> anti-trust law. Crystal clear.
>
>And already ruled to be legal by a district appeals court.
No, it was ruled to not be a per se violation of a previous consent
decree; whether it was legal according to anti-trust law was never even
examined, let alone considered, in the District Appellate Court.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:47:09 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> The one who thinks the original words he used are not themselves
>> sufficient for communication of his intended meaning.
>
> Are you saying you don't respect the authority of a dictionary on the
> meaning of words?
Of course I am. What a stupid idea. A dictionary is supposed to
provide *definitions* for words. "Meaning" is far more quixotic, and
not easily reduced to a few pristine examples. Anybody who thinks they
can rest an argument or line of reasoning on whether a particular
definitions does or does not support their or someone's particular
meaning within a discussion is, simply, not thinking hard enough.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:47:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
[T. Max:]
>> No, actually, it doesn't. I didn't even understand when people started
>> (I should say that the media represented that people started)
>> questioning (correctly, it turns out) whether the huge bump in gas
>> prices wasn't "price gouging". I don't really understand the term. It
>> seems close to quibbling; they're either earning an honest profit, or
>> they're profiteering. I don't know what "price gouging" is supposed to
>> mean, in relation to that. Or the discussion of Microsoft's criminal
>> activities.
>
>So then why do you say the following again? (as much as I'd like to let you
>to snip and change the subject)
>
>> $45 dollars for seventy five cents worth of CD? Christ, that's about as
>> monopolistic as you can get, IMO.
That's not price gouging. That's rampant and coercive profiteering.
Was that really so hard to figure out? There's earning an honest
profit, and then there's demanding exorbitant profits on scarce or
necessary goods: profiteering.
BTW, JS/PL, my little intentionally ignorant friend; there really isn't
anything you can do to avoid "letting" me snip and change the subject,
should the desire strike me. The fact that I often ignore your more
pathetic delusions and occasionally use some stupid comment you've made
as the basis for an illuminating or worthwhile comment has nothing to do
with an desire on my part to change the subject, as much as an attempt
to prevent boredom from overwhelming me. You really should at least try
to come up with some new point. Pretending that your old ones haven't
been thoroughly renounced is just silly. And, as I mentioned,
incredibly boring.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:48:12 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >> They are free to have that right if there motivation is benefit to the
>> >> consumer, not if there motivation is to limit competition.
>> >
>> >I am pretty sure that copyright law doesn't say anything about their
>> >*motivation*; And anyway, if being *greedy* were grounds for a
>> >company to be broken up, there would be no more companies *left*. :D
>>
>> You don't actually think this has anything at all to do with copyright
>> law, do you? Or simple "greed", as in profit motive?
>
>Hard to be sure. People keep saying what MS does is wrong because
>of their motives. Sometimes even that it is illegal because
>of their motives.
Kind of like the way whether your motive is the difference between
"murder" and "manslaughter", that.
>> >I realize you don't *approve* of this sort of large scale for-profit
>> >moneygrubbing- but some of us *do*, so I think you really are
>> >taking a bit too much for granted.
>>
>> No, you don't approve of profiteering any more than anyone else would.
>> You are simply ignorant of it.
>
>I think that if your argument depends on your telling me what
>I approve of, you are already lost.
I think if you intend to deny that you share the ethical standards of
the majority of other homo sapiens, you are lost, and your argument is
irrelevant. I must admit that I've assumed you are an intelligent and
honest person. If this is mistaken, then you may have a point.
>> >> >Every software maker has the right to insist that 2nd
>> >> >party distributors not re-write the software before distribution.
>> >>
>> >> Copyright owners have the right to their property.
>> >
>> >This would seem to cover Microsoft.
>>
>> Now if only they weren't an imaginary abstraction themselves...
>
>Well, now, you can say that we shouldn't have these
>abstractions called "corporations" that have property
>rights like individuals.
No, I didn't say that, thank you.
>If you do say that, I guess you could justify a lot of htings.
>
>I happen to disagree with you on the point, however.
Again, your arguments seems to be based on an unsupported assumption
that "property rights", or rights to intellectual property, copyright,
has something to do with this discussion. Why is that? This case
concerns commerce, not authorship.
>> >> Trade secrets are not property.
>> >
>> >I was not aware any trade secrets were at issue here.
>>
>> The EULA is not a copyright license.
>
>Nobody is talking about the EULA but you. Microsoft
>has been saying that MS's *distributors* (ie, OEMs)
>can't change Windows without permission, then
>sell the changed version. The EULA is not the license
>agreement the OEM's use, I'm sure.
Precisely. Microsoft has been saying that Microsoft's *publishers* (ie,
OEMs, who incorporate MS's product within their own) are only allowed to
be Microsoft's *distributors*, supposedly because this is required in
order to maintain the value of Microsoft's *trade secret* EULA licenses.
A classic illustration of the idea that if you tell enough lies, even
honest people get confused.
>Clearly I've gotten you onto some kind of hobby horse
>of yours, and I think it safe to assume that no
>constructive discussion can take place with you
>on that subject.
Don't try to snow-blind, us, bub. If you can't take the heat, stay away
from my nuclear furnace.
>[snip- lots and lots and LOTS of irrelevant EULA stuff]
EULAs cannot possibly be irrelevant, it is the OEM licenses which
mandate that EULAs are the only method available for using Windows
within the OEM's PC products. Again, the ability to back up lies with
more lies until most people give up in consternation is quite
specifically something other than reasoned or reasonable argument.
>> You confuse product and program.
>
>I was using them interchangably; I'll try to be clearer.
No apology necessary.
>Operating systems are made of things that can be sold separately.
Anything is made of things that *can* be sold separately. Ever hear of
"after market goods"?
>This is nowhere more dramatically evident than in Window's case,
>where many, many components, including 'fundamental' ones
>were, in fact, sold separately at one time, and some
>*still are*.
There is not a single bit of Windows that was ever sold separately to my
knowledge.
>Windows is a bundle of different products, some available
>separately (IE, Windows Media Player, Windows Installer),
>others that were available separately but no longer are
>(the GUI, MS-DOS, DiskDoubler) and others that were never
>separately available but certainly could be (Internet Connect
>Sharing, for a recent example)
Windows is an operating system with a bunch of other stuff bolted on in
order to prevent anyone from competing with Microsoft. And your general
description in this paragraph would be more than enough evidence to
convict MS on several more restraint of trade counts, if we were to
assume your statement was correct.
>If bundling is out, then Windows *itself* is out, and in my view
>this applied to any OS. Suchg a product is not appreciably different
>just because historically it wasn't ever unbundled.
Think harder.
>> It is not because IE is a separate
>> program that they cannot combine them the way they did. It is because
>> it is a separate product.
>
>Like DiskDoubler. Like the Defragmenter. Like the GUI. A separate
>product, once upon a time, in actual fact- now bundled with Windows.
Yes, you are correct. I don't think there are many people here who
would argue this point. DiskDoubler and Defrag and Windows itself were
previous (un-indicted) violations.
>> And obviously IE is a separate product,
>> because it competes with Netscape, and Windows does not.
>
>Obviously the Windows GUI is a sparate product, because
>it competes with GEM, but Windows 95 does not.
>
>Windows includes also MS-DOS 7, and for some time MS sold
>both MS-DOS 7 and Windows 95. It comptes with DR-DOS. *And*
>this product preceeds Windows outright- *clearly* a 'separate product'
>if anything is.
Luckily for MS they got "special dispensation" enabling them to avoid
charges for these previous crimes because of the consent decree.
>Basically, you are saying that MS isn't allowed to produce an OS because
>OSes and bundled software, and bundled software is Not Allowed.
No, why would you say that? It wouldn't surprise me terribly if every
example of an "improvement" you can think of in Windows was actually
merely an anti-competitive tactic for preventing competition. But I am
a bit surprised that you are willing to even tentatively admit it.
>You may be right that Bundled Software is Not Allowed, but that
>outlaws Operating Systems, and I find it hard to see that as a good
>thing!
Only Microsoft's operating system. Again, you are confusing (now, I
believe, merely confabulating) programs and products.
>> In fact,
>> Netscape is reliant on fair access to Windows. Which is, of course, why
>> Microsoft's assertions concerning IE begin and end with "cut off their
>> air supply".
>
>Microsoft has not even been accused of cutting off Netscapes
>access to *Windows*.
Only their access to their air supply, which isn't Windows, but the PC
market. They did this directly by cutting of Netscape's access to the
Windows pre-load market (the restraint of trade/tying conviction) and
indirectly by cutting off Netscapes access to the PC market as a whole
(the monopoly conviction). I think you're going to have to learn to
understand the distinction before you're going to get very far trying to
support your argument.
>> >This is really true of OSes in general.
>>
>> All OSes, for instance, have kernel, and GUI. Let's say.
>
>This is definitely false.
*Let's say.* Get it?
>> But are there
>> any other OSes where the kernel (DOS)
>
>DOS is not a kernel. Windows 95 does not
>have a kernel in the sense that things like Unix
>do.
Sure it does. You just don't know anything about it, because it is
proprietary crapware rather than a real OS.
>> and the GUI (Windows) were once
>> both separate products?
>
>Yes. Unix is available separately from its GUI, and
>it's GUI from it. This is actually more the rule than
>the exception: MacOS is the oddball here.
[...]
>> Windows was as much a violation as IE is to begin
>> with.
>
>I'm glad you realize this!
>
>May I ask if you think Windows is no longer in violation, and
>if not, why not?
You seem to be playing catch-up, I'm afraid. Perhaps you are unfamiliar
with the original Consent Decree. I think you should try to do some
research on this before pretending to refute any other points. I'm
sorry I can't help you too much; I threw away all my links to the
Consent Decree several years ago.
>They got permission to "integrate" stuff with their OS; it wasn't
>just for Windows 95 alone. (Had it been, they'd have been hosed
>when Windows 98 came along, wouldn't they?)
This kind of shoddy argument just fills me with fury. I can hardly stop
from screaming, to be honest. MS got permission to *develop integrated
software*. They didn't get permission to "integrate" stuff AT ALL.
>> And then when it
>> came out, Windows95 turned out to be about as much "not DOS" as Windows
>> 3.1 was.
>
>This isn't really fair; while Windows 95 was certainly no NT, it
>was a step away from DOS, in that it used DOS rather less
>than Windows 3 had done.
"Fair?" Ha. How moronic.
It was a pathetic piece of SHIT, and it still is! And you are an idiot
in my judgement, for pretending that this is just fine and dandy and
going on and on and on and on and on and on in a really sickening
display of "how to be a passive aggressive asshole without a clue."
I'm sick, again, of wasting my breath. Figure out which is your ass and
which is a hole in the ground, and get back to me.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:49:02 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>[snip]
>> >Okay, I *understand* that you oppose *Microsoft* making
>> >product decision decisions that put Netscape at a
>> >disadvantage; I get that part. No need to belabor it.
>> >
>> >I'm asking *who should* make the decisition. Congress? The
>> >courts? An executive agency? Who?
>> >
>> >I understand the "not Microsoft" part already. :D
>>
>> Uh... the market?
>
>The market seems to have decided that it likes bundled
>products and that it likes web browsers as part of the
>software bundled with a computer.
Bullshit. The market complained when this was forced on them. I know
that you didn't (and still don't) hear it, but perhaps that has more to
do with the fact that you're covering your ears and yelling "LA LA LA LA
LA" as loud as you can?
[...]
>Do you find nonsense more bearable without the smilies?
Alas, I must admit I don't. Your nonsense is still unbearable. Not
being distracted by the smilies only highlights the nonsensical nature
of your deluded arm waving.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:50:07 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Ahh....but you see....this is where your non-credibility begins to show.
>> >Graphic rederings on game boxes according to you then are...accurate
>> >non-misleading representations of what the user will see on the computer
>> >screen? "As far as you know?"
>>
>> What, you mean the drawings? No, I was talking about the screen shots.
>> No, the pseudo-assumption that the general public responds to slick
>> bullshit advertising does not mean that anyone takes the graphics on the
>> cover of a game to be literal representations.
>>
>> Christ. You are really pathetic, dude.
>
>So then tell me why you said this again:
>
>> >Have you checked the screenshots of some of those games? And compared
>> >with the box picture?
>>
>> Yes. None of them are even misleading, AFAIK, [...]
Because I presumed that you were comparing the screen and the
screenshots on the boxes. I thought I'd explained that.
>And I'm a pathetic "dude". To me .... socialists are pathetic. Get over the
>fact that all the world loves a free market, even socialism is dying. I'm
>sorry.
I will agree that you are one sorry, pathetic 'dude', if you insist.
The laughable gesture you make to try to brand *me* a socialist is the
proof in the pudding, actually. I'm the capitalist who loves a free
market: you're the moron who believes, for no reason other than shallow
denials by Microsoft, that there is a free market in PC pre-load OSes.
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 18:51:29 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >> >When Leslie posted his 'theory', the result *was*, in his opinion,
>> >> >known.
>> >>
>> >> By Leslie?
>> >
>> >Oh yes. Surely if nothing else is clear, Leslie's low opinion
>> >of Microsoft's products is abundantly so.
>>
>> You have come full circle again, and are misrepresenting the case. The
>> validity of the prediction is not dependant on Leslie's expectation.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by this. what I'm saying is that it isn't
>a *prediction*, not that it is virtue of that invalid.
I don't care what you are pretending to mean by this. You're wrong; it
was a prediction, it was valid, and the fact that it was proven correct
supports Leslie's argument, whether you want to pretend otherwise or
not, and regardless of how long you wish to try to confuse the fact with
circular logic.
>[snip]
>> >> Personally, I considered it illustrated, not proved, by his
>> >> "prediction". But then, I don't confuse discussion with empirical
>> >> science.
>> >
>> >Well, apparently Leslie does. :D
>>
>> No, you do.
>
>Do not! :D
Did.
>> >But why hold that against him? It's hardly the worst of Usenet sins!
>>
>> It is.
>
>Confusing discussion with empirical science is the worse
>of Usenet sins?
No, trolling is the sin, and you are consciously and purposefully
committing it.
[...]
>If you say so.
>
>> You're trolling. Posting binaries inhibits discussion less.
>> Stop it.
>
>If you don't like trolling, why do you come to .advocacy news groups?
>This thread is exclusively contained in such.
You seem to misunderstand. I'm not J. Random Poster, who might not have
the weight of conviction in identifying what is heated discussion
between contradictory arguments, and what is a troll attempting to
disrupt discussion. I come here for discussion on topics I have an
interest in. You come here to try to pretend you have a great intellect
and can outwit people. The unfortunate part, of course, is that often
it probably works. Thus my problem; in order to encourage discussion, I
must waste countless hours first refuting your bullshit trolling.
Occasionally, this provides a lesson which I can present to other
readers in how to try to avoid trolling, and even heated and
contradictory argument. Just as frequently, however, I lose my patience
in the same way as less confident posters might. Since this seems to be
your only actual goal (prevent discussion), I can only surmise it must
be because you really don't have the ability to support your arguments
through reason. The unfortunate fact is that this is supported by the
fact that your position cannot support a reasoned argument: Microsoft
has committed a crime, whether you wish to believe it or not.
[...]
>> No, they don't. And I certainly know what interoperability is.
>
>Let me guess: it is "standards compliance" to you, right?
No, it is interoperability. Standards compliance is a mechanism which
supports interoperability; it is neither a goal nor a definition of
interoperability all by itself.
>> It has
>> everything to do with working *interoperably* with *competitors*
>> products, and Microsoft doesn't do that.
>
>Sure it does.
"Sure"? You really are a pathetic and intentionally ignorant moron,
aren't you? You haven't a clue, I'm afraid I must say, what
"interoperability" means. Not even a hint of a clue, in fact.
>> >It's *standards compliance* where they're reputation is
>> >a bit less than gleaming white. But I am not going to let
>> >you conflate the two.
>>
>> Could be you're mistaken, there.
>
>Could be, but isn't.
Given your general level of cluelessness, I guess it might be worth
pointing out that it is not complying with standards, but in attempting
to subvert them to support profiteering, where MS has a rather dark
brown looking reputation.
http://www.opensource.org/halloween/
>> Could be you're trolling.
>
>This one is a bit more likely, though. :D
Fine. I'll be sure to point out that you do admit to intentionally
inhibiting discussion because you have no reasonable or justifiable
point to make, when next you post this mindless drivel of yours.
[...there's not much point in going on with this charade, now is
there?...]
--
T. Max Devlin
Manager of Research & Educational Services
Managed Services
ELTRAX Technology Services Group
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-[Opinions expressed are my own; everyone else, including
my employer, has to pay for them, subject to
applicable licensing agreement]-
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
From: Chris Wenham <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 22:53:47 GMT
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Of course I am. What a stupid idea. A dictionary is supposed to
> provide *definitions* for words. "Meaning" is far more quixotic, and
> not easily reduced to a few pristine examples. Anybody who thinks they
> can rest an argument or line of reasoning on whether a particular
> definitions does or does not support their or someone's particular
> meaning within a discussion is, simply, not thinking hard enough.
I wasn't trying to rest the argument that the word "cater" had been
inappropriately used in.
Regards,
Chris Wenham
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
