Linux-Advocacy Digest #460, Volume #34 Sat, 12 May 01 21:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (The Ghost In The Machine)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Robert W Lawrence)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Roy Culley)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (Roy Culley)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Roy Culley)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 23:51:41 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, JS PL
<hieverybody!>
wrote
on Sat, 12 May 2001 11:48:05 -0400
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>> "JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner> writes:
>> >
>> > T. Max Devlin wrote in message
>> >
>> > [on the high probability that MS will skate...]
>> >
>> >>that will make them about as innocent as O.J. Simpson.
>> >
>> > Keep practicing statements like this. Your going to need them in a few
>short
>> > days (or weeks) Judgement day is drawing near for Sleepy Jackson. The
>big
>> > slap down is fully cocked and set with a hair trigger. He's looking up
>with
>> > his tail between his legs.
>> >
>> > Sleepy is about to feel a boot in his ass from a full panel of his
>> > superiors.
>> >
>> > And Max is going to be doing some major spin control when his life's
>work on
>> > usenet turns to vapor in a fleeting instant, one day soon.
>>
>> If the US judicial system fails then the EU are just waiting to bring
>> Microsoft to justice. Microsoft don't have any political clout in the
>> EU and the penalties will hurt where they hurt most - up to 10% of
>> gross world wide sales.
>
>The US judicial system has already failed, it is now in the "fix" phase. And
>who cares about what Europe thinks? Let them eat cake...err...Linux.
IMO, Europe will fail, also. No, I for one do not look for the courts
for redress of this situation. I would hope that Linux becomes
a viable alternative on its own merits -- and look at how easy
Microsoft formats are to hack. At some point, they'll either
merge [*], or Microsoft will have to be better in order to stay on top.
And because Linux is free, they'll have to do it legitimately.
Ideally, MS would just die, and Linux, along with FreeBSD, AIX, HP-UX,
Solaris, SCO Unix, and QNX will now compete on their merits, quality,
and implementation of standards. But I don't see that happening soon;
too many people depend on Windows. (This is not a bad thing, but
Windows isn't exactly the best API.)
Of course, Microsoft isn't exactly helping itself, either; it's far
too easy to launch a .VBS worm, apparently. Brain dead? You bet!
(Linux can fail, too. The worst thing for it to do is fragment into,
say, half a dozen kernel types, incompatible with each other; the
open source will help in that one can rebuild as one transports code
from one type to another, though. Hard to do with NT... :-) )
[*] assuming this concept makes sense; Linux, after all, is not
a corporation. Most likely, Microsoft will play smorgasbord,
picking and choosing the utilities it likes.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 12d:16h:09m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. Just when you thought you were safe.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 12 May 2001 23:55:52 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > Hardly. I get more flexibility from this than letting windows munge
> > > things up.
> >
> > If you think that desktop market is composed of masses
> > of people who can and will write *print filters*- or even
> > configure them- you are quite out of touch.
> >
> > [snip]
>
> When do you have to configuer print filters in Linux or Unix?
When you want to benefit from the
flexibility of print filters, naturally!
If you just want prefab stuff, then
it appears drivers will do fine.
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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: Sat, 12 May 2001 23:58:40 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > It's because the Windows API is mind boggling large, and Microsoft
> > keeps adding to it, and WINE does not get to use any of Microsoft's
> > code to implement it.
> >
> > It's actually very well documented as such things go.
>
> If tis so well documented, why do micor$oft's competitors continually
> point out that micro$oft's engineers have access to APIs that they dont?
A few allege this, but there don't seem to be
any examples that can be verified.
Frankly I think MS isn't dumb enough to do it after
the debacle with Word 6.
Essentially, using internal OS features just makes it
hard to run on Windows 95 *and* NT, and that's
very much a part of MS's strategy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
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, 13 May 2001 00:00:46 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, GreyCloud
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 11 May 2001 19:55:28 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>
>> "GreyCloud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Edward Rosten wrote:
>> > > So where does the assembler INT instruction become an API?
>> > >
>> > > How about when its used from the QuickBasic int() function?
>> >
>> > Its starting to look like MS has been busy changing the semantics again.
>> > Its like taking a an old gray mare and painting it to look new again.
>>
>> "Changing" the semantics?
>>
>> What did API used to mean, back in the olden days? :D
>
>It didn't exist back then.
There might have been something called a "CPCI", according to a friend
of mine (she doesn't remember precisely what it means, but a logical
rendition might be "Component Program Call Interface").
It's in one of the milspecs.
>--
>V
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- which one? Good question!
EAC code #191 12d:19h:13m actually running Linux.
Does this message really exist? Where?
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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, 13 May 2001 00:05:40 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
> >"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >Open source is a competitor in
> >the *real* market Windows is in.
>
> If that's the real market, Daniel, how come they make the vast majority
> of their profits on the end user Windows licenses? Sure, they make a
> lot on development software. But that would just be another market they
> monopolize, not anything they are any more "in" than OEM pre-loads.
They do that because developers *won't pay* per copy
royalties. It's too painful and too risky. They'll use
some other product or roll their own, 9 times out of 10.
So Microsoft transfers the fees to end-users and gets
their pound of flesh that way.
Don't laugh, it works.
Windows, as its core, is a bunch of libraries
that do commonly useful things. What MS
did was fine a way to sell such a thing
profitably.
> Have you ever heard of "forestalling" and "engrossing"? They're both
> what might be called 'primitive forms' of monopolization. Forestalling
> is controlling all the production, and engrossing is dominating the
> consumer channels. MS engrosses the developer market (as you noted,
> their "real" market, because it is necessary to both overcome and build
> the application barrier that protects the monopoly) in order to
> forestall competition in the "platform" market.
I think you need to proofread that. You aren't using
the term "forestalling" consistantly.
Beyond that, I don't know quite what you mean
by "developer market"; Windows is certainly in the
"platform" market, and as such is a tool used by
developers.
Granted, MS throws in some freebies; WordPad
is not a development tool in any sense. But almost
everything in Windows is, even things like
Explorer that don't always look like it.
> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
You're welcome. :D
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:08:43 -0400
JS PL wrote:
>
> "Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > JS PL <the_win98box_in_the_corner> wrote:
> > >
> > >[prison!....come on....you can't be that deluded...]
> > >
> > Much as it might surprise you some felons do actually spend time in
> > jail.
> >
> > What will not happen, but should, is prosecution under the RICO Act
> > and confiscation of his, Ballmer, and the other top executives'
> > entire fortunes.
>
> And your imaginary "felon" as head of software development at Microsoft is
> continuing his XP plan to do exactly what the DOJ and Jackson don't want him
> to do! Integrate! Integrate! Integrate! It's pure comedy. This begs the
> question. If it's agin the law, why don't Jackson stop him? Oh that's
> right....the appeals court has already ruled the integration (the basis of
> the whole litigation) is a GOOD thing. When it's all said and done I hope Mr
> Jackson isn't indicted and imprisoned for his trampling upon Microsofts
> constitutional rights. That's where they put felons you know!? tee hee.
Tee hee?
And we are supposed to take you seriously?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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, 13 May 2001 00:08:24 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
[snip]
> >> What in the world gave you that impression?
> >
> >That would be: "Nobody ever accused you of
> >being honest"
> >
> >You seem to think that I can't *really* believe
> >what I say, so I must be lying.
>
> I suppose it might seem that way to you, sure. I don't mistake lack of
> lying for being honest, though. Whether you believe what you say is not
> a subject I'm willing to discuss as an entire category. I'm not
> planning on second-guessing you, but simply double-checking your
> statements indicates you are being dishonest, routinely. Perhaps it is
> meant to be light-hearted, but I've already pointed out that there's
> little humor in criminal activity, so your supposed merriment is
> obviously just trolling.
Hmm.
So it is your contention that I am being dishonest,
yet that I may still believe what I say.
These two things don't seem to be in
conflict to you?
They seem that way to me.
[snip]
> >> Hell, *I* disagree with me all the time! What's the problem?
> >
> >Really? I've never seen you do that. :/
>
> I don't do it out loud, for god's sake. They'd have never let me out of
> the hospital if I still did that! :-D
Oh dear. :(
Hadn't really thought of it *that* way...
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:13:20 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "JS PL" <hi everybody!> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > "Ed Allen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > > JS PL <the_win98box_in_the_corner> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >[prison!....come on....you can't be that deluded...]
> > > >
> > > Much as it might surprise you some felons do actually spend time in
> > > jail.
> > >
> > > What will not happen, but should, is prosecution under the RICO Act
> > > and confiscation of his, Ballmer, and the other top executives'
> > > entire fortunes.
> >
> > And your imaginary "felon" as head of software development at Microsoft is
> > continuing his XP plan to do exactly what the DOJ and Jackson don't want
> him
> > to do! Integrate! Integrate! Integrate! It's pure comedy.
>
> <Sarcasm>
> But IE isn't the only thing that MS integrated.
>
> What about TCP/IP stack? MS integrated that into the OS, and kill the 3rd
> party stack supplier(Trumpet Winsock). *Bad* MS, why wasn't it split then?
> What about GUI? MS integrated that into the OS, and killed the 3rd GUI
> suppliers (Desqview). *Bad* MS, why wasn't it split then?
> What about memory management? MS integrated that into the OS, and killed 3rd
> part memory management (Quarterdeck ). *Bad* MS, why wasn't it split then?
>
That is what a lot of people are asking.
> (I'm probably forgetting a lot here, help me)
>
> What about bundled applications?
>
> What about word proccessors? MS *killed* them by adding WordPAD. And graphic
> programs by adding PaintBrush.
> And no one will buy Adobe Premier because ME come with a video editor.
> And of *course* that I won't get a sound editing program, I've Sound
> Recoder.
Actually, M$ has pretty much killed off Lotus, Digital Research, Go
Computing, Stac...(I'm probably forgetting a lot here, help me)
> And CD Player is the only media application that I'll ever need.
> And why would I pay to buy games, I've Solaitre *AND* Minesweaper on every
> computer with Windows on.
>
> </Sarcasm>
>
> It's a good thing as long as it's something that the OS should provide.
> Today, can you really sell an OS without a browser? Can you *find* an OS
> that doesn't come with a browser?
What OS besides Windows ha an "-integrated-" browser?
> Today, when so many computers are sold with CDR, I don't see why I should
> pay about as much as I paid for the OS just to be able to burn CDs.
Why not?
> As for media player, it's the same as a browser.
>
Thats right. Anti-competitive, predatory bejavior.
> > This begs the
> > question. If it's agin the law, why don't Jackson stop him? Oh that's
> > right....the appeals court has already ruled the integration (the basis of
> > the whole litigation) is a GOOD thing. When it's all said and done I hope
> Mr
> > Jackson isn't indicted and imprisoned for his trampling upon Microsofts
> > constitutional rights. That's where they put felons you know!? tee hee.
>
> MS has no constitutional rights, it's a company, no a man.
Corporations do have legal rights under the law.
> At least... okay, I *hope*, sincerly *hope*, for the US of A, that MS has no
> constitutional rights.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:16:51 -0400
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > In article <9djs2t$bc2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> > "Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > >
> > > "JS PL" <hi everybody!> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >> The US judicial system has already failed, it is now in the "fix"
> phase.
> > > And
> > >> who cares about what Europe thinks? Let them eat cake...err...Linux.
> > >
> > > You *are* aware to the fact that Europe is bigger, stronger, more
> populated
> > > and much richer than the US, don't you?
> >
> > Of course he isn't. His view is the typical myopic american one. Microsoft
> > may well be still held in high regard in the US but to the rest of the
> > world they portray the US in the worst light possible (next to their
> > president of course :-)
>
> Don't know about the rest of the world, but at least here, MS is a life
> saver for many many *many* people.
How does micro$oft save lives?
> http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/01/31/219214&mode=nested
> (not mine, but I know what he speaks to be very true. The average person
> here wouldn't be able to use linux with a gun to his head.
Have they tried Mandrake?
> And I have yet to see a truely ported Linux,
What is truely ported?
> the way Windows was ported.
How was Windows ported?
> You know what, even
> full bidi support would be a good thing, which is something that I
> understand already happening/happened.)
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Robert W Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 12 May 2001 18:15:04 -0500
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<>If the overwhelming majority of men were truly bisexual, as you claim,
<>then why what reason would that be?
He assumes that since he is bi-sexual everyone else must be also. Go figure.
Robert W Lawrence
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
1Peter 5:7
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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, 13 May 2001 00:17:40 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> Welcome to the fascinating world of abstraction. Ever read Plato,
> >> Daniel? That's what you're trying, known as the Socratic or Platonic
> >> method; through this means it is possible to "prove" that nothing
> >> "exists". Ever heard the term "post-modern bullshit"? That's what
> >> you've got there.
> >
> >No, it isn't. Saying "T Max Devlin is wrong, again" isn't
> >the same as saying "Everyone is wrong, nothing is true".
>
> What does an induction assumption mixed with a category error have to do
> with the empirically proven uselessness of the platonic method for
> defining abstractions?
I take it from this that you do not feel you can
defend your positions, and so wish to change the
subject.
I, however, beg to be excused from discussing
Plato.
[snip]
> >You say this but you give me no reason to believe
> >it. I'm asking you to tell me how int 21h is *different*
> >from those things you do consider APIs.
>
> I'm telling you that this isn't at all an issue.
I'm asking it. I think it will edify one of us
for you to tell me the answer.
> "It's a piece of shit"
> should suffice, if all you need is some DIFFERENCE between it and an API
> to solve your little conceptual glitch.
If it's *not* different from an API, then why not call it
an API?
I suppose your personal definition of "API" might
include "is not shit", but that seems unnecessarily
restrictive to me, and I don't think it's common
usage.
> You can call it anything you want; it's just rhetoric.
Then I shall call it an API. Thank you. :D
> There are libraries on the other side of an
> API, since the term was coined, because that is what it means, and BIOS
> can be 'considered to be like a library', but that isn't what it is,
> now, is it?
Isn't it?
If libraries are only things that are loaded by a dynamic
linker of some sort, then indeed it isn't- but if that's true,
then the Macintosh Toolbox on 680x0 Macintoshes
is again not an API, since it is not loaded by a linker.
(Though for the pedants, I will note that a few bits
were so loaded. But not most of it.)
> The question is not why isn't it an API; the question is
> why would it be an API, and being "like an API" isn't good enough.
Why not? Seems like a pretty good reason to call it
an API.
> There isn't anything other than a rhetorical reason to refer to it as an
> API. The answer is that it is not an API, so you can call it a duck or
> a tree or an API but it doesn't change what the thing is, and therefore
> can't change what it is not.
Ah, but by calling int 21h an API I am making a substantive
claim: that it played a role in DOS applications similar to that
played by Win32 in Windows applications, or POSIX in
Unix applications.
"API" does mean something. It may not mean the same
thing in your mouth as mine, of course.
But do understand that I do not mean that in a postmodernist
"but either is just as good" sort of way; I think my version is
the conventional, even standard, usage, and that to diverge
from it is to impede communication.
> The question isn't why you don't understand the point; my own rhetoric
> is hopelessly convoluted and abstract, even fanciful. The question is
> why you would bother to question the point.
I question it because I suspect that if we do not clear
up things like this, they will come back to haunt us.
That may be unfair. I am a programmer, and I am
used to being extremely precise. This approach to
comunication may be unfamiliar to you, but I
assure you that I mean no offense by it.
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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: Sat, 12 May 2001 20:19:59 -0400
JS PL wrote:
>
> "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
> > All Microsoft have going for them is their desktop monopoly. This will
> > either be rectified by the US judicial system (and charges of perjury
> > brought against several Microsoft employees if the judicial system
> > wants to keep any sort of credence) or the EU will punish them where
> > it really hurts (up to 10% of gross annual revenue).
>
> Your scope of the law is rather limited isn't it? By that logic, all persons
> who plead innocent but are later found guilty should also have "perjury"
> tacked on to the sentence because they said they were innocent.
I see you dont know the difference between a defendant pleading innocent
and a witness lying under oath.
Oh and
> Europe isn't going to do a damn thing, so don't get your hopes up...just to
> have them all crash again.
And just what do you know about European anti-trust law?
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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, 13 May 2001 00:20:07 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 11 May 2001 18:46:17
> [...]
> >> It has to be what people familiar with the term mean when they say
> >> "API".
> >
> >I'm trying to get a fix on what *you* think it is.
>
> An API is the minimal amount of data necessary to know how to use a
> library in programming software.
Ah; so perhaps you object to my calling int 21h an API
because you take "int 21h" to refer narrowly to a machine
instruction, and not all the surrounding folderol?
If we called it the "DOS API" would that satisfy you?
> Also; the specification of this in a formal encoding language,
Formal encoding language? What API is specified in
such a way?
> documentation in natural language concerning that specification and its
> use, and/or a label used to denote a general class of problems possible
> while using the library.
You seem to be including a lot of extra stuff here. Why
are these things part of an "API"?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 01:04:40 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <Y_YK6.10408$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>If they're bad mouthing Windows and praising Linux, then why are they
>>>still using Windows? That sounds to me like hypocracy.
>>
>> You're apparently trying very hard to remain ignorant of precisely what
>> we are bad mouthing Windows for.
>
> I'm not trying, I'm succeeding. I call you a hypocrit because you'rev still
> using a Windows application. Surely if you believe Windows is crap, you'd
> drop it in favour of a Linux equivalent?
Succeeding? You don't follow at all! Some people, nae most people, are
forced to use Microsoft SW. This from the man who says he worked on
routers and yet cannot configure NIC's under Linux. Windows was made
for you Pete.
---
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 01:06:34 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <1HhL6.22$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>I'm not trying, I'm succeeding. I call you a hypocrit because you'rev
>>>still using a Windows application. Surely if you believe Windows is crap,
>>>you'd drop it in favour of a Linux equivalent?
>>
>> Now *that* is what they mean when they say "not very quick on the
>> uptake."
>
> Brilliant. Throw something in that makes absolutely no sense and completely
> ignore what's being said to you.
>
You are thick aren't you? Most people have no choice but to use Windows.
Get a clue.
---
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley)
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Sun, 13 May 2001 01:08:39 +0200
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Pete Goodwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >Why should Pete feel stupid?
>> >You made a statement that you can't back up because you haven't a clue
>> >concerning Direct-x.
>>
>> I use it. It sucks. 'Nuf said.
>
> Linux. I use it. It sucks. 'nuf said.
>
> There?
>
> Happy now?
Except most people don't have your problems with Linux. You do come
across as totally inept.
---
Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
record. The worst offending piece of SW, by far, IIS. 2001 isn't
looking any better.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
