Linux-Advocacy Digest #264, Volume #34 Sun, 6 May 01 17:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux disgusts me (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Windos is *unfriendly* (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Pete Goodwin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 23:05:43 +0200
"Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9d3s8q$rdi$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > I *strongly* suggest that printing *must* be addressed as soon as
> >> > possible. I honestly see very little movement on that front.
> >>
> >> I don't understand this printing problem that Unix supposedly has. Unix
> >> apps normally produce postscript. Unix lpr uses filters to see what the
> >> data type to be printed is. If you don't have a postscript printer the
> >> filter will use ghostscript to convert it to pcl or whatever. I now
> >> have a Lexmark z52 which has its own Linux driver. To me it is totally
> >> transparent. Before I had an HP850C. Again printing was totally
> >> transparent. Where is the problem?
> >
> > First, there is a news server that is dedicated to printing in Linux,
>
> Well, UNIX printing is much more flexible than windows printing.
See below, I don't think so.
> > that is a problem all in itself. Second, we aren't talking about end
> > users' problems here, we are talking about support for developers. Let's
> > say that we take two comparable products that does the exact same thing,
> > one for windows, the other for linux. The windows one could have
> > printing support in a matter of no time, because GDI abstract the output
> > device from the developer, so you don't have to change the code at all
> > to print to a printer or display on the screen. The only worry you have
> > is page breaks.
>
> You're making an absoloutely *HUGE* mistake here. You're making the false
> assumption that all Linux applications use the GUI. Well, they don't. So
> now look at it like this:
>
> You have 2 comparable commandline apps, one for windows and one for
> Linux, and you want to print from them. How do you do it?
>
> Well, for the windows one you have to do the whole GDI thing, making your
> program totally non protable.
>From the *command line*? WTF?
FILE *fp = fopen("LPT1","wt");
if (!fp){
printf("failure opening printer port");
return 1;
}
fprintf(fp,"Here I'm printing text using fprintf() on windows\n");
fclose(fp);
I might have gotten the file name wrong, it has been a long time since I did
printing this way.
BTW, you have to go to *great* lengths to find a portable C/C++ program that
is portable once you start using graphics, so it doesn't count.
> For Linux, you do the whole PS thing using nothing but printfs. Linux
> wind hands down here because the app is now totally protable (hell it can
> be written in totally compliant C).
See above, and it's fprintf, not printf.
> I actually write quite a lot of apps that do printing under Linux. none
> of them use the GUI and they were all very easy to write.
We are not talking about text printing here, you know.
For text printing, you can just forward the input to the printer, and that
is it. No hassle to the developer at all.
> There is another problem in windows. Because the process is opaque, there
> is no way of getting a device independent printer file. If you print to a
> file under Windows, you get one for your printer. Under UNIX you get PS,
> which you can then take to any other system and print happily using the
> full capabilities of the device. This is a feature I use a lot.
Install a PS printer driver, print to file, done deal.
And *I*, as the developer, don't need to know anything about PS to do it,
too. It will create a perfectly legal PS file, too.
> > On Linux, however, you need to have seperate code that does it, which is
> > much harder than adding few "if"s for page-breaks.
>
> Only for GUI apps.
Since most (all?) printers can accept fprintf commands, then *of course* we
are talking about GUI apps.
Or, at least, of printing non text stuff.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 23:13:00 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:ZIeJ6.7029$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <FsXI6.5997$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >> No, they have monopoly power and they abuse it.
> > >
> > > Calling them "monopoly powers" does not make
> > > them any less magical.
> >
> > First you say 'Microsoft does not have the strange supernatural powers
> > you attribute to them' and then 'Calling them "monopoly powers" does
> > not make them any less magical'? You are very confused indeed.
>
> I still don't think they have these magic powers, no matter
> what they are called.
>
> > They are a monopoly. The findings of fact show this. They are not
> > fighting the FoF (they can't because they screwed their case so
> > badly) but the remedy.
>
> The Finding of Fact is a joke. If it stands, it will show
> how screwed up the American legal system is.
Are you sure? I thought it had been shown how screwed up it was before.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 23:20:41 +0200
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> billwg wrote:
> >
> > Do you have any authentication for that letter? That condition would be
an
> > explicit violation of the Consent Agreement and would be of extreme
interest
> > to the DOJ, at least the previous administration DOJ. I suspect that
the
> > story is bogus since there was such an extensive search made by the DOJ
for
> > any such agreements or documents from Microsoft to the extent of
subpoenaing
> > contracts from most of the OEMs over the objection of Microsoft but by
order
> > of the Jackson court.
> >
>
> It was published in a book.
> The Microsoft File.
> Read it.
I'm sure that DoJ did. They never brought it in court, meaning that they
can't bring it in court. Meaning you have no other documentation.
That which is not just is not law.
--William Lloyd Garrison
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 23:20:45 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:_IeJ6.7030$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> > >> No, they have monopoly power and they abuse it.
> > >
> > >Calling them "monopoly powers" does not make
> > >them any less magical.
> >
> > A century of law says you're wrong.
>
> The Sherman Act has been around this long
> because it is a wonderful tool to use on those
> companies that do not make their compaign
> contributions on time. Like Microsoft.
Actually, I do believe that MS make campaign contirbution JIT. And have
always have.
It's a part of being a (big) bussiness in the US, I believe.
Maybe he's only a little bit crazy, like painters, or composers, or some of
those men in Washington.
--Mr. Shellhammer
Reader, suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of
Congress. But I repeat myself.
--Mark Twain
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 23:23:17 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:%IeJ6.7032$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <NuXI6.6002$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > "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.
> >
> > I know I'm pissed but please stop. How can you write that without a
> > smiley?
>
> I'm sorry that the existance of some who appreciates
> Windows pisses you off.
>
> But really, it's a very good product.
>
> It *is* better than GEM or DOS or Unix or OS/2
> or the MacOS... for the desktop app market, if
> nothing else.
Okay, I can understand GEM & DOS & Unix, on desktop. OS/2 also, although I'm
not familiar with it very mcuh.
But why do you think that Windows makes a better desktop platrom than the
MacOS?
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux disgusts me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:27:12 GMT
Terry Porter wrote:
>>> I believe the paradigm of x.0 software being buggy and therefore
>>> best left alone, only applies to Commercial Software.
>>
>> AbiWord?
> ????????
AbiWord is an alpha product at best and has some amazing redraw problems
with large documents.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:28:59 GMT
Terry Porter wrote:
>> Unlikely. It doesn't take a degree to figure out networking.
>
> No but it takes a MCSE (at least) to figure out Windos networking :)
Really? You think it's _that_ complex?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:29:38 GMT
Said Graham Murray in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 06 May 2001 17:54:56
>In gnu.misc.discuss, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 21:56:59
>> >An API is not complete without the documentation of what its function does.
>>
>> You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function call
>> unless the function is documented?
>
>No. Such a function, while part of the library, is not part of the
>API. As has been stated before, the API is like the contract between
>the consumer (application) and provider (library.) Undocumented
>functions are outside the API, and there is no guarantee that all
>implementations of the API will contain that function, nor that if it
>is provided that its parameters, return value or action will be the
>same.
If an API is "like a contract", then it is simply the documentation of
the agreement. Not "the agreement" itself. Only people engage in
contracts; objects do not. A contract is in some respects the paper
defining the agreement (the documentation of the API or the
specification for the API, either) but it is also in some respects a
mental construct, without any value in the physical world (the promise,
and the government enforcement, which are only potential with no
physical power until you go to court). So, like the cook reading the
recipe, the idea of the API as "a contract" might work just fine for a
rough technical translation of what an API is to the non-technical, but
I don't think you should take the analogy as seriously as you seem to
do.
Or at least recognize that "contracts" are mental constructs, as much as
specifications written on paper. An API is a platonic object that
represents nothing more than the library (or any other library which
supports the API). This is why the FSF's only contention is with APIs
which ONLY have GPL libraries (or use of GPL libraries specifically with
bug-for-bug compatibility.) If this contract is with any library at all
which supports the API, then there is no claim by the FSF. If the
contract is with a specific library, and it is GPL, then the FSF claims
that any 'person' (software) entering into that contract must abide by
the terms of the GPL license. This is there right; you can find it
abhorrent if you like, and your alternative then is obvious: don't use
GPL code.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:29:52 GMT
Weevil wrote:
> No. You apparently choose to start DHCP manually so that you'll have
> something to complain about. It is the only explanation for why you're
> still doing it after several people have explained to you, with
> unaccountable patience, various ways to automate it.
And I, just as patiently, tried some of these solutions and descovered they
do not work.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:31:12 GMT
Terry Porter wrote:
>> That explains why I have Windows network up and running and Linux I have
>> to start DHCP manually.
> No it doesnt, it also doesn't explain why you couldnt get your NIC working
> recently.
For someone to say "setting up a Windows network is hard" and then I
descover it's a breeze, yet the same hardware it is not at all easy, what
should I conclude?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windos is *unfriendly*
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:34:33 GMT
Charlie Ebert wrote:
> I go away for just a couple of months and you go ballistic idiot
> again Pete!
Yes, you do seem to have a peppershot style of posting.
> So DHCP won't start automatically on your Linux box then!
Correct.
> HUMM, could it be that your a fucking dumbass? What did you do
> to disable it then? How'd you manage it since you don't know anything
> about Linux? Did you accidentally blow away INIT.D from root?
> Did you finally figure out how RPM uninstall works?
Could it be that there's a bug in Linux? Or in the drivers? Not in the
drivel you post?
> Oh I know! You formatted the Linux partition flat this time!
Oh yes, that's right! The network doesn't work! Format the partition!
That'll fix it?
Idiot!
> BTW, it's been a year since we first met and Linux is still the
> #1 fastest growing OS! And you've been campainging hard against
And yet it hardly shows a blip on the desktop market.
> Linux for One year now! And LOOSING appearently for one year now.
It isn't winning on the desktop market now is it?
> 27% growth rate for Linux and 18% for Windows.
In servers? Maybe? Desktop? Nope!
> It doesn't look good for Microsoft Pete. Better try harder!
Despite everything, it still looks rosy for the criminal monopoly known as
Microsoft.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:35:54 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> DirectX *sucks*.
About as useless a statement as "Linux sucks". _How_ exactly does DirectX
suck?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:36:44 GMT
Terry Porter wrote:
> Now why'd you have to say that Pete ?
> I had you all nice and cozy in a Wintroll box!
I'm so sorry I shattered your cosy illusion.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 16:42:59 -0400
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> JS PL wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May
> > > >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001
12:34:15 -0400;
> > > >> [...]
> > > >> >I don't care what the problem is. I prefer an OS that works well
> > without
> > > >all
> > > >> >the hours of configuration.
> > > >>
> > > >> I prefer an OS that works consistently without all the hours of
> > > >> reconfiguration.
> > > >
> > > >So do I, that's probably why I mainly use WINNT. And I assume it's
why
> > you
> > > >ONLY use Win95. Because only a complete ass would use an OS that they
> > > >*don't* prefer.
> > >
> > > No, NT is just as bad. Worse, in some ways.
> >
> > Sure it is, that's why everyone is running one or the other, and 3/1000
are
> > running Linux.
>
> MOst people are running Windows becasue of Microsoft' predatory
> anti-competitive behavior.
Sure they are. You keep chanting that to yourself, while the rest of the
world get their work done better, faster and easier on the Microsoft
platform.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:42:48 GMT
Said Lee Hollaar in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 12:26:07 GMT;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>>Said Jay Maynard in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 5 May 2001 15:28:46 GMT;
>>>Copyright is the right to prohibit others from making copies (plus some
>>>other rights). The existence of profit changes the penalties, but not the
>>>fact that it's a violation of law.
>>
>>There are no penalties, if you'd bother to notice. Copyright violations
>>are entirely a civil matter: there is no criminal enforcement of
>>copyright. It's not like anti-trust law, either, where they just don't
>>often use criminal prosecutions, but the gov't becomes a civil
>>complainant. There IS no such thing as a criminal copyright violation.
>
>See 17 USC 506 (Criminal offenses) and 18 USC 2319 (Criminal infringement
>of a copyright). I guess TMax didn't "bother to notice" those two sections
>in the Copyright Act and criminal code.
>
>For those who don't have a copy of the United States Code, here are the
>URLs to the sections on the Copyright Office web site:
>
>http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92chap5.html#506
>http://www.loc.gov/copyright/title17/92appvii.html
>
>Note that there is a typo in the Copyright Office version of 17 USC 506(a)(2).
>It should read "... during any 180-day period, OF 1 or more copies ..."
>See Public Law 105-147, the "No Electronic Theft (NET) Act."
>
>And lest TMax say that those sections pertain to criminal copyright
>"infringements," and not criminal copyright "violations," note that
>18 USC 2319 starts out "Whoever violates ..."
>
>As I've said before, TMax just makes up this stuff as he goes along, and
>doesn't take the time to see what is really in the Copyright Act.
Thanks for the correction.
A worthwhile excerpt:
Criminal Infringement.-Any person who infringes a copyright willfully
either-
(1) for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain, or
(2) by the reproduction or distribution, including by electronic means,
during any 180-day period, or 1 or more copies or phonorecords of 1 or
more copyrighted works, which have a total retail value of more than
$1,000,
shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18,
Notice that there is no possible criminal infringement without
commercially fraudulent practices. This was my real point, though I am
chagrined to learn I was presenting it in such a mistaken fashion. How
much is the retail value of a song on Napster? Do you think the greedy
profiteering uber-capitalist corporate swine would swear that it was
millions, when everyone else would recognize that it is worthless, by
the very fact that it is available on Napster?
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: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:43:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> No. It would involve my giving my time away for free so that some
> corporation could reap the benefits of my work.
Isn't that what the GPL is designed to prevent?
> I have nothing against the open source movement or the programmers
> that dedicate their time and talents for free, but somebody is making
> a buck off of Linsux and it isn't them.
You think those distros are making huge profits? Yet some are collapsing.
When I chose recently to make the sources for my 3D scene editor "open
source" (see http://mse.sourceforge.net/), I did it for a few simple
reasons: (i) I'm realistic, I'm never going to make money out of this
project and (ii) I'm getting stale and need the input from others on this
thing.
Previously, there have been around 5000 downloads of my scene editor. 10
people contacted me, some offering to pay money for it. It's an interesting
project (to me anyway) but it's not commercial. So why not open source?
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 16:46:44 -0400
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> billwg wrote:
> >
> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> > > >
> > > >Saying this doesn't make it so. Until 1995, Microsoft
> > > >sold a version of Windows separate from DOS.
> > >
> > > The question is not whether they sold it (had it available). The
> > > question is how much people bought it. People weren't buying it, so
MS
> > > forced it on them: this is documented by Microsoft's internal
documents.
> > > Arguing against it just makes you look stupid.
> > >
> > This doesn't seem to gibe with the Caldera case theory for one thing.
Their
> > assertion was that Microsoft used Windows to leverage MS-DOS, not
vice-versa
> > as you seem to be saying.
>
> Letter to Mike Davis, Diamond Trading
>
> Dear Mike
> Further to out conversation yesterday, I am writing to confirm that
> Microsoft is unable to supply you Windows as a single product. Microsoft
> will only sell you Windows as a combined package with MS-DOS 5.
> Yours Sincerely
> OEM Sales
> Microsoft Ltd.
typo and all huh?.. That looks real authentic. Oh I see, it came from the
fictional book The Microsoft File.
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:46:36 GMT
T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Does it say "accept" and "reject", or does it just say "OK" and
> "cancel", and you're assuming the change is rejectable?
Ahhhh... I usually change the time back to the correct time then hit OK. I
don't remember if there was a cancel.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 20:47:22 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>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.
>
> I seem to recall that what the dialogue says is, at least in some versions
> of Windows, along the lines of "Time has been changed, please verify that
> this was correctly done". And it was a simple information box, i.e. no
> "OK" and "Cancel" buttons, but just one "OK" button.
>
> In other words "We did something. Please fix it if we screwed up!"
That sounds correct. However, that's not how it was portrayed in previous
posts.
--
Pete
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[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!
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 23:46:44 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:FNfJ6.7105$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > Why? Is that because you're entirely ignorant of a century of
> > precedent, perhaps?
>
> The Sherman Act leaves crucial terms undefined, and
> the legal precendent seems to say that this means things like
> 'markets' are whatever the prosecution wants them to be.
>
> That is why it invites abuse.
You are making *sense*, in an advocary group, I'm pretty sure that this is
against the rules.
I agree, especially when you are talking about the defination of a markets.
> > 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.
>
> I'm pointing out that their some of their products are
> in fact really very good.
>
> That doesn't mean they succeeded because of this, but
> it opens up the possibility, don't you think?
I think that MS is going the wrong way with their products, especially the
enterprise line.
They should do what Oracle does, release "learning editions" for free,
meaning that you could download MS-SQL Server, VS, MSDN for free for
non-commercial use.
Those products are of excelent qouality, and those are only those that I've
experimented with. Giving them away for free would mean that there would be
much higher precentage of MS skill set in the computer industry. Thus, when
you want to build a big project, you would think about MS first.
As I said, that is what Oracle does, and they make a whole lot of money.
> > 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.
>
> Can be, but hasn't been. The theoretical possibility that
> Microsoft's competitors could catch up is undeniable...
> but it is also not important.
Not, that they *will* catchup, the problem is whatever they will be able to
give the consumer something that is so compelling that they would *want* to
move.
Because just giving the customer equal products is not enough, you've to
have something to move him to your product.
And MS products aren't going to be on a standstill.
A man with a watch knows what time it is. A man with two watches is never
sure.
--Segal's Law
> > 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.
>
> "Technically superior" is a crock. Applied to operating systems
> it has come to mean ".. better as a server platform"; a specific
> set of attributes is implied. More stable, more scalable, and so on.
>
> "Technically superior" is all about ignoring what the market
> demands, and providing what what technical people want
> demand instead.
>
> It's a receipe for failure.
Again, I agree.
> > 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.
>
> You have a very longwinded way of saying "you're wrong".
>
> But I don't really give you much credit; I think that
> you only support the law with the blind vigour you
> do because you perceive that it is able to hurt Microsoft.
There is no crueler tyranny than that which is perpetrated under the shield
of law and in the name of justice.
--Montesquieu, 1742
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
