Linux-Advocacy Digest #243, Volume #34 Sun, 6 May 01 02:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux disgusts me (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux disgusts me (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux disgusts me (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux disgusts me (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:37 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001 19:36:45
>Karel Jansens wrote:
>
>> When Windows 9x "adapts" for daylight saving time, it changes the CMOS
>> clock, which is a very braindead thing to do (or a sure sign of a lazy
>> programmer's work). Windows does not ask for confirmation to do this,
>> and the default in the settings is to automatically change the time.
>>
>> What kind of hack did you put in Windows to make it ask for
>> confirmation?
>
>Windows has always present me with a dialog telling me daylight saving is
>in effect and this is the new time. I either accept or reject the change.
>No hacks required.
Does it say "accept" and "reject", or does it just say "OK" and
"cancel", and you're assuming the change is rejectable?
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:38 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:Q4HI6.118153$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > > Got one already. A BSCS from Rensselaer Polytechnic.
>> >
>> > You must be a minority, then. Nobody as stupid as you could graduate
>> > with a BSCS unless you are a member of some political "victim" group.
>> >
>> Atleast he finishes what he started, unlike some people.
>
>Hmmmm?
>
>What's all this?
>
>Is there an amusing story behind this comment?
No, just rampant ad hominem attacks against a couple trolls who didn't
finish college.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:39 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > > Those licenses exluded other OS's from being installed instead of
>> > > Windows.
>> >
>> > Okay, okay, so you *are* claiming that.
>> >
>> > But no credible source says that.
>>
>> The FTC, the DOJ and the vendors said that. Who esle do you want?
>
>No, they don't.
Yes, they did. Metaphorically, perhaps, but this is the jist of the
matter.
>They have said that Microsoft made some deals
>with some vendors where MS got paid for each
>processor shipped, with Windows or no.
PPL was only the FTC, and MS succeeded in being dishonest enough to
soft-pedal it in the consent decree. The primary complaint which
threatened Microsoft in 1995 was the forced bundling of Windows with
DOS.
>But none that excluded other OSes.
I'm going to have to insist that you stick with a single definition of
OS, if you're planning to argue this point. That means either DOS *OR*
Windows is "an operating system". Which is it?
>Ferinstance, dual booting Windows and some obscure
>hobby OS is quite a common configuration for
>the techno-elite. A compy with a per-processor
>license could have addressed that market very
>nicely, thank you.
BZZZZ. Troll-meter overload, Daniel. You don't get responses (other
than ridicule) when you wander off into "some obscure hobby OS"
bullshitville.
[...]
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:40 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>> >"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >Okay, okay, so you *are* claiming that.
>> >
>> >But no credible source says that.
>>
>> No credible sources deny that.
>
>They don't deny that Bill Gates is
>a pudding-headed alien from Vega 9,
>either.
Nobody asked them about that. Only your purposeful ignorance of reality
allows you to fail to understand that point, because YES they've been
asked, and YES they have *supported* the point with TONS of evidence.
Guffaw!
(The point is the question of whether the per processor licenses are
violations of anti-trust law as "exclusive contracts". They are, but
not clearly.]
>[snip]
>> >> No kidding? Thats whay they signed? To avoid a guilty verdict?
>> >
>> >To avoid a lengly lawsuit. It's not like they needed
>> >those licenses, anyway.
>>
>> Really? They sure tried hard enough to force people to pay for them....
>
>They made do without, once they had hte excuse
>of DoJ opposition. Hell, they probably made
>more money that way. They weren't the ones
>who had to pay for all the paperwork those
>licenses were supposed to avoid.
BZZZZZZ Troll Meter Overload, putz-brain. Trying to defend illegal
activity is not rational.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:41 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> You are a retard. The per-processor licensing fees ARE restraint
>> >> of trade, you idiot.
>> >
>> >You say that, but you don't say they excluded anyone- nobody
>> >is saying that.
>>
>> That's because it is built into the phrase "restraint of trade".
>
>Oh. If so, Microsoft is clearly innocent by even hostile
>accounts.
If only "restraint of trade" weren't illegal, you might have a point!
Doh!
>> How
>> can you enumerate who was excluded, given the LACK of presence? Am I to
>> say they 'excluded 3Com from making OSes'?
>
>You can if you like, but I think you know that it isn't
>true.
BZZZZ Troll Meter Overload. Excessive rhetoric to avoid addressing an
important point makes you BORING.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:42 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > > Please name the top 20 OEM that does not have a ppl.
>> >
>> > Oh, I don't think there was one- Compaq was, in my
>> > humble opinion, *right* about this. A top 20 OEM that
>> > tried to foist lesser operating systems on their customers
>> > would not be top-20 for very long!
>>
>> They foisted M$ OSs on people. You ststement does not hold water.
>
>They gave their customers what they wanted; that is what
>it takes to be a top-20 OEM.
No, this is just begging the question. Go pretend to learn logic
somewhere else, troll. Or admit you're just a moron with Microsoft
stock, and get in line with the other sock puppets.
>[snip]
>> > Then I suggest you are being sloppy with your accusations; you
>> > know full well that MS never excluded anyone. At their *worst*
>> > they want you to sell *their* product, whatever else you may sell.
>>
>> Excluding OS and app competitors is what per-processor and per-system
>> licensing is all about.
>
>No. It's about selling Microsoft product.
Yes, it is excluding OS and app competitors, which dishonest people like
you and criminal companies like Microsoft would like to call "selling
products".
--
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: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse
me - d'oh!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:43 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:47:00
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> >I know what Ada is, and I know how badly the mandate was accepted.
>> >I also know that there were many loopholes in it.
>>
>> Then you should have simply said "Ada was never 'the next big thing'",
>> if you wanted to disagree with Tom's phrasing, rather than pretending to
>> not understand it.
>
>I thought he might have more knowledge of the subject then I am.
"Than I do". (No insult intended; just trying to help out with the
language.) You should have been content with the knowledge that he had
more perspective than you do.
>Considerring that he said that there was a time that Ada was the next big
>thing, and that I knew of no such time, I asked about it.
There was such a time, and you knew about it; you just didn't realize
that it was an accurate description, because you did not know "all"
about it. It was "the next big thing" at the time.
>I couldn't tell whatever he is right or wrong before knowing what he spoke
>about.
Then you should have presumed he was right, and asked questions with
that tone. You will get flamed less that way.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:47 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > You seem quite fixated on your opinion that Microsoft
>> > has transgressed the letter of the law in producing a better
>>
>> What "better product" would that be?
>
>That'd be Windows.
>
>> BTW, why do you thnk they signed
>> that first consent decree?
>
>They thought they could avoid being sued.
>
>Wrongly, as it turned out.
>
>> > It's odd. Does it not occur to you that perhaps the law
>> > might not so good?
>>
>> Tell that to Stac, Digital Research, Vobis, Go Computing, Intuit, the
>> FTC, the DOJ, and the several States Attorneys General.
>
>I think the DoJ and the attorneys general, at least, *need* to be
>told that they are out of line, yes.
You are saying that Stac and DR and Go are out of line in complaining
about Microsoft's purposeful actions to exclude them from the market?
That's apologizing for criminal behavior, Daniel. Getting your jollies
trolling isn't worth destroying your character so completely.
>> maybe you are right. Maybe it isnt ough enough. Micro$oft keeps slipping
>> through.
>
>Fortunately.
>
>This country isn't quite as corrupt as it looks, sometimes.
It is with dishonest fucks like you in it.
--
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:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:50 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
>> >You seem quite fixated on your opinion that Microsoft
>> >has transgressed the letter of the law in producing a better
>> >product for sale.
>>
>> I am sure of the fact that Microsoft has been convicted on three counts
>> of violations of the Sherman Act.
>
>Well, that's not quite the same thing.
Since your's was a fantasy representation of my thinking, and mine is my
thinking, to say its not quite the same thing is to point out how stupid
you are. Is that what you're trying to do? Prove how stupid you are?
>Consider that the
>conviction might be overturned soon. If it is, will that
>changes the facts of whether MS broke the letter of
>the law?
They didn't break the letter of the law: they broke the law. If there
conviction is overturned it will mean there conviction is overturned;
whether they broke the law then resolves to whether they are
reconvicted, or the Supreme Court's decision, depending on what happens
next. If you're going to suspend your reason until you're sure of
everything, you'll be dead before you stop being stupid. So much for
the "pretend philosophy" to try to weasel around the discussion. Are
you trying to say that Microsoft is innocent, or not guilty? Please
explain, with something other than stupid trolling, or stop making an
ass of yourself.
>> >It's odd. Does it not occur to you that perhaps the law
>> >might not so good?
>>
>> Yes, it certainly does. I would never advocate applying a law which I
>> had not considered ethically, nor would I support a conviction in which
>> the violation had not been considered ethically.
>
>Yet you seem to feel that *I* should do that very thing;
>I should condemn Microsoft for breaking a law without
>any consideration of whethre that law is defensible.
No, you should GET ON WITH IT. Consider, already, you moron. You're
using their products, you've paid them money, you own their stock. Its
time to consider whether you're an unethical piece of shit or not. Just
because you're afraid you know the result already, and it doesn't make
you look good, you're going to have to have the courage to face it, or
you're going to remain a pathetic immature moron until you die.
>> Microsoft did not
>> "compete hard", no matter how many times you try to slip it in as an
>> assumption, Daniel. My replies to you are not evidence your trolling is
>> finding success, but just entertaining chances for me to prove how lame
>> you are. I will grow bored soon, you can be sure, but I will always be
>> around to spank you should you continue to behave as dishonestly as you
>> have.
>
>Glad to know you're still a fan! :D
You don't fool me. I recognize a cry for help when I see it.
>> Yes, it has occurred to me that the law might not be so good, and I
>> considered the matter quite definitely, and found this not to be the
>> case.
>
>Care to share your reasoning? I don't find it
>defensible; it looks to me like the Sherman act
>amounts to giving the DoJ carte blanche to destroy
>companies that don't make their campaign contributions
>on time.
Why? Is that because you're entirely ignorant of a century of
precedent, perhaps?
>In other words, I think it's a bad law that invites abuse.
Why? Is this conviction merely based on the fact that it was used to
convict a company you have stock in of violations of federal law?
Didn't you realize you should suspect such an assumption?
>I think the MS case is an example of such an abuse;
>though hardly the only one.
Please, feel free to branch out into other cases you may be familiar
with. I'm shivering in anticipation.
>> You seem quite fixated on pretending Microsoft's anti-competitive
>> activities are both legal and acceptable, even typical, as if no other
>> company is interested in or capable of producing a better product for
>> sale.
>
>Well, that's not so- other companies have tried to do so. Microsoft
>beefs up their own offerings when this happens. That part of
>the reason why some MS products *are* so good.
They're putrid; don't make excuses for the fact that they're not simply
disfunctional. I don't agree with the 'negative competition' theory,
and have never heard it advanced by any competent opponent of
anti-trust. You're begging the question, by presuming that the reason
for MS's market share is the quality of their product; a baseless
assumption given the circumstances of an anti-trust examination. This
isn't any presumption of guilt; merely the blindness of justice. You
cannot prove any 'superiority' of MS software on technical grounds
alone, since any software feature can be duplicated by other software.
Therefore you're stuck with the plain facts as advocated by the balance
of technically competent observers: Microsoft's software is utter crap,
and most of the alternatives they squashed anti-competitively were
clearly technically superior by both scientific and market measures.
>From there, you may defend their actions, but the presumption of
innocence is not sufficient to deny their own actions, which also
clearly demonstrate an intent to monopolize and avoid competing on the
merits of their product.
>> It's odd. Has it actually never occurred to you that perhaps breaking
>> the law might not be so good?
>
>It has been suggested to me, but I think it amounts to
>an abdication of moral responsibility to pretend that the
>law decides right from wrong.
You know, if you didn't revel in being a troll so much, you might
eventually be capable of maintaining a useful discussion. If you deny
both the law and the correctness of obeying the law, you're just an
annoying unethical little criminal. Not a rebel, just a moron.
It is not an abdication of moral responsibility to obey the law, because
obeying the law, and recognizing that breaking the law is to be avoided,
is not "pretending that the law decides right from wrong". It is merely
recognizing that you are not God, for Christ's sake.
Now you should decide right now whether you're going to be a delusional
idiot, or a rational human being. Delusional idiots troll, rational
human beings ask questions. Feel free to practice, but it is your
responsibility to accept without defensiveness whatever flames you
generate.
--
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: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:51 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>On Sat, 05 May 2001 15:28:03 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> [...]
>>>I won't argue that point!!!
>>>
>>>Flatfish
>>
>>BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA! As if you've ever 'argued a point'. LOL.
>>
>>You go troll, now, little flatfishie. Go insult some more people who
>>know more than a tired old man who never really was very good with
>>computers.
>
>This coming from a person who posts reams of words that say so little
>but use up so much bandwidth.
Still having trouble keeping up, huh?
>BTW what ever happened to your Linux computer?
I installed Win95b on it, because it is the simplest option in a
monopolized industry. I dual boot to Linux occasionally, but I've had
five years of practice with monopoly crapware. Its still frustrating,
but as the trolls say, "it's familiar". (Only they use a less accurate
term.)
--
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: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:52 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001 15:10:51
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>> [...]
>> >I won't argue that point!!!
>> >
>> >Flatfish
>>
>> BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA! As if you've ever 'argued a point'. LOL.
>>
>> You go troll, now, little flatfishie. Go insult some more people who
>> know more than a tired old man who never really was very good with
>> computers.
>
>Thanks a lot!
You're welcome.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:53 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>On Fri, 04 May 2001 23:33:15 +0000, "Gary Hallock"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>wrote:
>>
>>> So did I get your shared library question somewhat correct?
>>>
>>
>>Only somewhat. See my reply. And you never mentioned what bad things
>>would happen (or more accurately, what good things will not happen) if
>>you try what you suggested with C++ code.
>>
>>> And as for my real name, you are correct. IMHO only an idiot would use
>>> her real name in a advocacy group.
>>>
>>
>>Only a moron would brag about his accomplishments and then refuse to
>>provide any evidence.
>>
>>Gary
>
>
>I told you I am not a programmer. Hello.c and a basic Fibonacci (sp?)
>sequence and simple shell sort is about as far I ever went. BTW this
>was with punched cards running Fortran.
>
>FWIW, using a real name is just foolish.
Why?
--
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: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:54 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>On Sat, 05 May 2001 19:33:13 GMT, Pete Goodwin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> And as for my real name, you are correct. IMHO only an idiot would
>>> use her real name in a advocacy group.
>>
>>That makes me an idiot then.
>>
>>Why not use your real name? What are you afraid of?
>
>I have very strong opinions and have always tended to be that way
>whether it is politics or operating systems or what ever. That doesn't
>mean that my opinions can't change over time. Why commit myself to
>something that might change in the future?
It's an abstract concept, known as 'integrity'. Owning up to your
previous, potentially incorrect, opinions is part of it.
>I don't judge others but I feel it is foolish to use ones own name and
>I feel that people who ignore the content of a message and focus on
>that fact are as equally foolish as the grammer/spelling police.
>
>Read the message, agree/disagree/debate.
>
>flatfish
The message includes the context. Anonymous trolling is anonymous
trolling; you defeat any potential value your content might have by
making evident the fact that you are not willing to stand behind your
statements.
--
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: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:54 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
[...]
>For the 10th time
First time.
>Direct-X effects
DirectX *sucks*.
--
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: Linux disgusts me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:55 GMT
Said "John Smith" in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 09:04:22
>I installed Redhat 7.1 using the kde desktop.
>
>WTF ? Illegible non anti-aliased fonts that require a magnifying glass to
>read ? WTF ?
That's why the OEM channel is so important, and why MS monopolizes it to
so effectively exclude competition.
>And free software / open source developers have the temerity to criticize
>Microsoft. Get fucking real ...
Real as it gets, motherfucker.
>At least Microsoft has developers that understand the rudimentary principles
>of user friendliness. Default fonts of readable size, anti-aliased, ...
OEMs....
>Microsoft should take pity on you and offer free internships so that you can
>learn how to do things right the first time.
>
>You bunch of losers,
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
--
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: Linux disgusts me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:56 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
>So then you Linonuts should put pictures of a Bourne Shell # prompt on
>the back of the distribution boxes and tell the prospective buyer how
>great it is instead of all of these pretty pictures that don't end up
>looking anything like what is displayed on the monitor when and if the
>buyer is actually able to install Linux.
Mine looked just like the box. Funny...
--
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: Linux disgusts me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:57 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
[...]
>Talk to Terry Porter.
Congratulations, Terry.
>He's been using Linux since somewhere back in the Jurassic period and
>denies all of these problems.
No, he doesn't.
>BTW you "can" change the font size to 100dpi but run the risk of
>aborting the entire system is you don't know what you are doing.
It is a trivial fix, with practically zero risk.
>Search on "Font De-Uglification" for information because these yo-yo's
>have a How-To for just about everything.
Yea; what a bunch of yo-yos. Guffaw.
--
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: Linux disgusts me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 05:59:57 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001 19:28:24
>John Smith wrote:
>
>> WTF ? Illegible non anti-aliased fonts that require a magnifying glass to
>> read ? WTF ?
>
>Anti-aliased fonts are available for Linux. As well as 100dpi fonts. Yet
>distros such as SuSE 7.1 and Mandrake 7.2 don't offer these features. I
>can't help wondering why, if it's an obvious feature that is going to be
>missed.
I think you over-estimate what will be missed. Don't forget, the novice
user base has already accepted DOS.
--
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
******************************
