Linux-Advocacy Digest #363, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 12:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Roberto Alsina)
Re: The Microsoft PATH. ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Linux still not ready for home use. (Craig Kelley)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Lee Hollaar)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Matthew Gardiner)
Re: Linux Users...Why? (Dave Martel)
Re: the Boom, Boom department (Brian Langenberger)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Erik Funkenbusch")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: IE ("Michael Pye")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[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: Wed, 09 May 2001 11:42:05 -0400
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Daniel Johnson
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Sat, 05 May 2001 18:19:25 GMT
> <NuXI6.6002$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >> > You seem quite fixated on your opinion that Microsoft
> >> > has transgressed the letter of the law in producing a better
> >> >
> >>
> >> What "better product" would that be?
> >
> >That'd be Windows.
>
> Actually, I'd say Windows + Office. Or perhaps Microsoft BackOffice,
> which is NT4 + Exchange -- I don't know what the Win2000 variant is.
>
> Windows by itself is a foundation; Office makes the house comfortable.
> (And dangerous, with all of the stupid script kiddies and their
> trojans/worms. But hey, anything for convenience. :-) )
>
> >
> >> BTW, why do you thnk they signed
> >> that first consent decree?
> >
> >They thought they could avoid being sued.
> >
> >Wrongly, as it turned out.
>
> Yep.
>
> >
> >> > It's odd. Does it not occur to you that perhaps the law
> >> > might not so good?
> >>
> >> Tell that to Stac, Digital Research, Vobis, Go Computing, Intuit, the
> >> FTC, the DOJ, and the several States Attorneys General.
> >
> >I think the DoJ and the attorneys general, at least, *need* to be
> >told that they are out of line, yes.
>
> Well, for some oddball reason, the suit hasn't been thrown out.
> Maybe Microsoft can appeal to the Supreme Court -- they sure
> should have enough dough to do so.
>
> >
> >> maybe you are right. Maybe it isnt ough enough. Micro$oft keeps slipping
> >> through.
> >
> >Fortunately.
> >
> >This country isn't quite as corrupt as it looks, sometimes.
>
> No, we're [*] merely stupid and gullible. :-) We apparently think
> Office is the best out there, that Windows is the best out there,
> that the x86 PCI PC platform is the best out there, that 99.999% is
> a good uptime, and that what's good for Microsoft is good
> for the country. :-)
>
> However, I think we're learning. (I'll admit I wish we could
> learn a little faster, and IBM's rather odd Peace/Love/Linux
> black-background billboard is this side of peculiar. I'm not
> even sure it provides a contact phone number....?)
>
> Personally, I use Office -- and it is convenient, when it doesn't
> do something peculiar. It has some weird ideas where to put messages,
> as well; the setup for puting messages on one's local disk -- a
> capability Netscape has more or less *by default* -- took a half
> dozen operations, some of which required changing the properties
> on the Microsoft Outlook Icon to include the personal archive files
> desired to store messages in! And people wonder why their
> Exchange mail spools run out of space...
>
> It also tends to violate conventions of posting-at-bottom when used as
> a newsreader. I'm also not quite sure, when replying to a message,
> whether it'll use a fixed text font or Rich Text Format. (There's
> probably a control, somewhere...)
>
> This is bodgery of the highest order. I'd award Microsoft the
> Golden Raspberry of Hacking Around The Latest Workaround of a Bug, [+]
> but am afraid they'd publicize it in one of their publications and
> make oodles by marketing it as The Newest Thing Since Unix. :-/
>
> [*] there are some exceptions to the "we", mind you; many of them post
> on these newsgroups. I do use Office, Visual Studio, and
> Internet Explorer. I also use Cygwin (which includes things
> such as mv, cp, vi, and ls) and Samba. I suspect a few others
> are in a similar boat.
>
> [+] it would actually be painted yellow; no point in wasting real gold
> on such a, erm, prestigious award. :-)
Brown would be a more.....appropriate color.
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random Bronx Cheer here -- OK, so I was born
> in upstate New York; I can still use it, can't I? :-)
> EAC code #191 8d:03h:03m actually running Linux.
> This is a voluntary signature virus. Send this to somebody.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: 9 May 2001 15:43:00 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 09 May 2001 11:34:47 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:14:59 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Edward Rosten wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >> > Being warm blooded is not the thing that makes a mammal, having
>> >> >> > mammae is what makes the mammal. Birds do not nurse their young,
>> >> >> > mammals do
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Yes they do. Hatchlings are fed by their parent(s).
>> >> >
>> >> > Not with breast milk.
>> >>
>> >> So? the other guy said "birds do not nurse their young". This is false.
>> >
>> >MAMMALS NURSE THEIR YOUNG WITH BREAST MILK
>>
>> Yes that is true. However, that doesn't make "Birds do not nurse their young"
>> true.
>
>Are you really an idiot, or do you just play one on USENET.
You are confusing me with you.
>THE ***DEFINITION*** of a mammal is an animal which nurses its you WITH MILK
>FROM MAMMARY GLANDS.
Yes, and I said so myself in a previous response, in a clear fashion,
unlike you.
>I.e. what seperates mammals from ALL other families is PRODUCTION OF MILK.
Not the only thing, but one of the most obvious. Of course several
non-mammals feed their young from nutricious glandular secretions,
but they are not usually called milk.
Then again there are substances called milk that are not produced by
mammals.
>> I must add that *some* birds don't nurse their young, but they are rare (
>> the only example I can think of is the cuckoo).
>
>Thanks for proving what a fool you are.
Why, have you ever seen a female cuckoo nursing their young?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Microsoft PATH.
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 11:44:40 -0400
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> A great deal of you don't remember this as you weren't
> alive during the 80's, at least not consious, and you never
> knew a life without Windows.
>
> Windows got it start into business by attacking small business.
>
> Linux is going the same thing.
>
> From my consensus in my own town, 50% of the small business's,
> that being a business with under 100 employee's are using Linux
> now.
>
> Surprisingly, most of these business's have established REDHAT
> Linux ONLY policies and don't have Novel, other UNIX, or even
> Windows in their offices anymore.
>
> They are LINUX ONLY shops.
>
> There other business's in this catagory just replaced their
> back office servers with REDHAT servers and left the desktops
> as Windows for the most part.
>
> Linux is taking the exact same path that Microsoft did to achieve
> power. They conquer the small businesses first then work on
> the larger ones.
>
> In the larger shops, I don't know of any companies as of now
> which don't have at least one LINUX server of some kind.
>
> The Military is starting to buy REDHAT equipped PC's in serious
> quantities now.
>
> The Governments are dabbling in Linux still here. There about
> like the large shops.
>
> Linux is very clearly feeding on replacing Microsoft equipped
> machines. That seems to be what's it doing 80% of the time
> right now. There's no NOVEL or other UNIX left hardly anywhere.
>
> In the last year of deploymnet, I have heard of NO LINUX retractions
> in business. Once Linux get's started in a business it seems to stay
> and even grow.
>
> I expect the next 2 years to provide Microsoft with SERIOUS financial
> damage from loss of market share.
>
> In the same respect, I expect REDHAT stock to start to climb starting
> now for the next 2 years at least.
>
> Microsoft is getting their first taste of an ass whoopin right now!
Wonder what Microsoft will do when GM hops on the Linux bandwagon.
At that point, I wonder
Will Gates will pick of the pistol, or opt for poison.
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: Craig Kelley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux still not ready for home use.
Date: 09 May 2001 09:48:46 -0600
Since nobody else has done so yet:
+------------------------+
| |
| PLEASE |
| |
| Do not feed the troll. |
| Thank you. |
| |
| The Management |
| |
+----------+--+----------+
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
* @ @ ( ) * @ )|@ | / @ \ * * @* * +@
_)_()_(_(_|(__)_)_(|(_|/__/__)(_(_))_(_/)_
--
It won't be long before the CPU is a card in a slot on your ATX videoboard
Craig Kelley -- [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.isu.edu/~kellcrai finger [EMAIL PROTECTED] for PGP block
------------------------------
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: Wed, 9 May 2001 11:50:18 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >No, when an MCSE can't get monopoly crapware to work right, its
> >Microsoft's fault, not the MCSE. Likewise, when an administrator cannot
> >get Linux to work right, it is the administrator's fault BECAUSE LINUX
> >IS NOT A MONOPOLY. Get it?
Nobody gets it. The statement is so fricking dense that the one molecule of
credibility you ever posessed went right out the window.
If an MCSE can't do something which IS possible on Microsoft software, it is
quite obviously his/her own fault. Same with Linux.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 9 May 2001 15:50:04 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 18:22:52 GMT;
>>If I remember correctly, the sentencing guidelines for assessing the
>>criminal penalities for the act explicitly use the retail value of the
>>copied work. That's highly suggestive that the same computation would
>>be used for determining whether the criminal copyright statute had
>>been violated.
>
>You honestly think it would be feasible for someone to charge a Napster
>user with criminal charges?
Not "someone." Any criminal prosecution has to be brought by the the
United States Attorney in the district where the offense takes place.
And they are generally busy with other things, like drug dealers, to
spend the time prosecuting a Napstep user.
But if you *are* a drug dealer, better not put songs up on Napster.
Remember, Al Capone was sent to prison for tax evasion. Today, that
might be criminal copyright infringement.
>The value would HAVE to be the value to the given consumer, if he
>couldn't obtain illicit copies, or there is simply no ethical support
>for the law. Which means a Napster user would have to rip several dozen
>albums to get even close to the legal threshold of $1000. But you know,
>due to the oppressive curtailing of freedom driven by the corporations,
>they'd want to count each download and multiply the value by that.
If you look at 18 USC 2319, it's clear that the value is the retail value
of the songs, not the value of the song to the person doing the infringement
or even the value to the person receiving it. So, if it were determined
that the value of an individual song on a CD was $1 (maybe by dividing
the retail cost of the CD by the number of songs it contains), then if
a Napster user distributed that song to 1000 other Napster users, the
$1000 threshold would be reached.
>>You were simply wrong about there being no criminal statutes concerning
>>infringement.
>
>No, I was simply mistaken. There are no criminal statutes concerning
>non-commercial infringement. Or at least that was the intent of the
>$1000 threshold. Unfortunately, the explicit figure gives the wrong
>spin, having been .
Actually, you were pretty definite when you told Jay Maynard "There are
no penalties, if you'd bother to notice. Copyright violations are
entirely a civil matter; there is no criminal enforcement of copyright."
And you are wrong (or mistaken) again. There certainly are criminal
statutes concerning non-commercial infringement. That's precisely the
reason Congress, with the No Electronic Theft Act, amended 17 USC 506(a)
to add the alternative to "commercial advantage or private financial
gain" of simply infringing a significant number of copies.
As for the intent of the $1000, it was to avoid criminalizing de minimus
infringement.
But you don't have to take my word for it. You can read House Report
105-339, that accompanied the NET Act, to see Congress' intent of
criminalizing non-commercial infringement. (You can find it at
ftp://ftp.loc.gov/pub/thomas/cp105/hr339.txt) They spell out the purpose
of the legislation at the start of the report:
The purpose of H.R. 2265, as amended, is to reverse the practical
consequences of United States v. LaMacchia, 871 F. Supp. 535 (D. Mass
1994) [hereinafter LaMacchia ], which held, inter alia, that electronic
piracy of copyrighted works may not be prosecuted under the federal wire
fraud statute; and that criminal sanctions available under Titles 17 and
18 of the U.S. Code for copyright infringement do not apply in instances
in which a defendant does not realize a commercial advantage or private
financial gain.
As for the $1000 figure being "codified before almost infinite replication
of a song at almost zero cost was feasible." Nonsense. It was added to
17 USC 506 in 1997.
Again, you are just making this stuff up as you go along.
------------------------------
From: Matthew Gardiner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Thu, 10 May 2001 03:51:53 +1200
~¿~ wrote:
>
>> Then in 1995, dad decided to purchase an IBM-Compatible computer, P75 w/
>> 8MB of Ram, 850Mhz hard disk, 1 Meg video memory, and an SB16 SoundCard,
>> I thought it was awsome, 10 times faster than the Amiga, a huge hard
>> disk (I thought 850MB was huge compared to what the Amiga had). Then
>> the day it arrived, I hooked it all up, and booted the computer. I took
>> atleast 20-30 secs to load, and I sat back and thought that it was kind
>> of strange a new computer booting slower than my 7 year old Amiga 500.
>> Anyway, I moved on from there. Then I installed some applications.
>> Office 95, Corel Draw 5, and before I knew it, my hard disk was almost
>> full! I thought, "how come 2 applications took up that much room?",
>
> Because it didn't, that's why.
> I'm assuming windows 95 as office 95 wasn't a windows 3.x application.
>
> Windows 95 installed - 80 to 130 mb's. Depends on partition scheme and
> options.
>
> Office 95 installed - 75 to 130 mb's. See above.
>
> Corel 5, I'm not sure as I've never used it. I can't imagine it using more
> than 100mb's.
> So, to recap, we have at this point less than 400 mb's of disk space using
> more than the maximums from above.
> 800 mb's of disk space (formatted) - 400 leaves a half full disk. How is
> this, and I quote you, "...my hard disk was almost full"? Dubious to say
> the very least.
I admit, my estimation was an over exaduration.
>
>> Kindwords used only 3 disks, and Fusion paint only used one! then I
>> thought, well, that must mean there are more features etc etc. So I
>> carried on, anyway, I then started to get these BSOD's, and I couldn't
>> work out why? I was only using one app at a time, when printing, I did
>> nothing in the back ground, however, at that time I know nothing of
>> Linux.
>
> Funny how it's always linux zealots who have these frequent BSOD's.
> I've used every version of windows since 3.0, and have had maybe 5 or 6
> blue screens in 8 years.
> Imagine that.
Nope, upgraded the DUN from the standard to 1.2B, and as a result, I kept
having radom BSOD's when connecting to the net. When printing the whole
computer slowed down to a crawl. Spotty PPP, modem kept on disconnecting,
Linux I can stay on until I get booted off by my ISP (which is after 3
hours during peak time).
>
>>Then in 1996-97 I purchased a PCPlus magazine that included
>> Redhat 5.2, I partitioned the hard disk, and proceeded to install it
>> (remembering to print out all the system information from Windows).
>> Once installed it, I rebooted and everything worked, ye ha! now, I then
>
> Well, just as your windows experiences aren't the de facto, neither is
> your RH 5.2 experience.
> I *purchased* 5.2. It left core files all over the place, used more ram
> (afterstep WM) than my NT box at the time, setting up menus had to be done
> via config files as most of the things I checked during installtion didn't
> appear on said menus. Getting emacs and pine to work with my pop3 account
> via my isp was an exercise in pure frustration. The Netscape 4x version
> that shipped with 5.2 was a broken mess.
> I could go on but it serves no purpose.
It worked grand for me, two machines, 2 distros (Redhat and SuSE), and no
problems face at any time, its either I have the midis touch of computing,
or else, its the norm.
>
>> booted back into Windows and downloaded KDE, and installed it, with in a
>> few hours of downloading and installing, I was online with my new Lintel
>> machine, 4 years, and 6 distro's later I am now happy with the set up,
>> been using SuSE for a year, Wordperfect Suite for a couple of days, and
>> everything is sweet.
>
> I'm glad you're happy with it. I enjoy Linux as well. Funny though how I
> catch crap in here for using a distro (RH 6.2) that really isn't that old
> at all, but you and others will shout about the MS upgrade mill
> constantly. My Linux box is an older Socket 8 200 with 96 mb's of ram. RH
> 6.2 is slow enough, why would I want to bog the machine down even more
> with Mandrake 8? Then I hear all this ballyhoo about xiaiman, or whatever
> this latest windows killer is called. I go and check it out. The mail
> client is a blatant rip off of Outlook Express, only done badly, right
> down to the 'outlook bar' motif. All this whining and bitching about this
> very windows client, then when someone copies it (attempts to) and the
> Linux brethren have at it, it's the best thing since sliced bread.
>
> Anyone see a pattern here in regards to double standards? It's downright
> scary.
I personally detest the hype surrounding GNOME, a half ass, half finished
be-arge of a GUI, and they expect people to use it! the file browser
(Nautilus) is even worse! slow and buggy like Mozilla. If GNOME 1.4 was the
only desktop, I would stick to Windows 2000 Pro out of spite of GNOME's
craps quality. However, I am now running KDE 2.1.1 w/ the latest libraries
etc, and it is fast, stable, reliable, non-ugly, and with the latest
library, 2.1.2. Fonts are smooth, the desktop is stable, and I am now
Nutscrape Scabpicker free. What more can an end user ask for?
Matthew Gardiner
------------------------------
From: Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 09:40:11 -0600
On Wed, 09 May 2001 15:07:17 GMT, "~¿~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Corel 5, I'm not sure as I've never used it. I can't imagine it using more
>than 100mb's.
You're not taking into account the inefficiences of the FAT
filesystem.
------------------------------
From: Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: the Boom, Boom department
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 15:54:04 +0000 (UTC)
Darren Wyn Rees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip!>
: I can't think of a single person or survey or iota of evidence that
: suggests people use Linux because it offers a quality games platform.
: It doesn't.
: Many Linux advocates find it difficult to concede the fact that Linux
: is not a gaming OS.
Here's how I see it:
Linux has games. Windows (I'll be assuming the consumer-grade version)
has games. Windows has significantly more games to choose from than
Linux. There's no technical reason Linux cannot support the same
number and quality of games that Windows does (by virtue of both
being able to run on the same hardware), but it has not done so yet
for various economic reasons.
Most of the argument comes from a mis-interpretation of the loose term
"gaming OS". Linux is certainly capable of playing games, and so it
could be considered a "gaming OS" by that definition. But if
"gaming OS" means "an OS that has lots of games for it", then
Windows fits the definition far better.
The ways Linux could improve its standing as a "gaming OS" by the
latter definition is to provide superior programming libraries for
the purpose (like Loki is attempting) and for the Linux users to
buy sufficient quantities of games to make it a viable platform
for developers to spend their time and energy on. But that's the
subject for another thread...
------------------------------
From: "Erik Funkenbusch" <[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: Wed, 9 May 2001 10:55:39 -0500
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May 2001
> [...]
> >Actually, he's completely right. I have here a copy of PC Magazine dated
> >January 1991 which talks about the split between IBM and MS and clearly
> >states that MS was working on "Portable OS/2" which was to be called OS/2
> >3.0 while IBM was working on OS/2 2.0.
>
> Just on the odd chance you aren't aware of it, Erik, nobody with any
> brains who has been in the industry for more than a couple years would
> believe jack-shit that PC Magazine said about such a thing.
Yeah, yeah. Whatever.
Would you believe Computerworld then?
http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://www.computerwoche
.de/archiv/1992/16/9216c012.html&prev=/search%3Fq%3DMicrosoft%2B%2522Portabl
e%2BOS/2%2522%2B3.0%26start%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN
"April 1990
IBM and Microsoft: Fold up their developer teams, in order to let no further
time delays develop. The new division of labor: IBM concentrates on the
Extended edition and on the adjustment of OS/2-Code at IBM hardware.
Microsoft develops the standard edition 2,0 and the new portable
OS/2-Version 3.0."
------------------------------
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: Wed, 9 May 2001 11:56:19 -0400
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> We have no way of knowing if Windows is "popular" with anyone. We only
> >> know it is common.
> >
> >Yes we do have a way of knowing:
> >Popularity with ME released
> >http://cws.internet.com/polls/poll31.html
> [...]
>
A snip with no response?
Now that Windows ME is available, what's your OS of choice Max?
I guess you fit into the Win95/3.x category. tee hee.
Windows 98 30.5% (1998 Votes)
Windows 2000 24.3% (1592 Votes)
Windows ME 19.8% (1301 Votes)
Linux 10.6% (700 Votes)
Windows 95/3.x 4.1% (273 Votes)
Windows NT 3.4% (227 Votes)
Macintosh 3.4% (226 Votes)
Other 2% (136 Votes)
Unix 1.4% (93 Votes)
Total Votes: 6547
------------------------------
From: "Michael Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Wed, 9 May 2001 16:41:32 +0100
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> Fair enough. I did get the complete opposite connotation from your term
> 'pressure'; I guess I'm the one with the knee-jerk reaction.
It was perhaps the wrong word, but the only one that fitted at the time...
> Most people who bring up the "superior technology lost" idea are.
> Funny, isn't it?
Not that funny. If they knew Betamax was alive and kicking, they wouldn't
use it as an example... ;)
> I apologize for being harsh. It's Usenet; it does that to you, if
> you're not careful. You don't come off as a kid, and that ain't as easy
> to pull off as it sounds. Welcome to the planet, sir.
I've noticed. I was slipping into the trap of escalation, so I thought I
better just snip the bits I didn't like without replying and cool it all off
a bit...
MP
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
