Linux-Advocacy Digest #509, Volume #34 Mon, 14 May 01 12:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know (Neil Cerutti)
Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (Mark)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (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: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Neil Cerutti)
Crossposted-To: alt.retail.category.management,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux in Retail & Hospitality - What Every Retailer Should Know
Date: 14 May 2001 15:30:05 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Chad Myers posted:
>"Ayende Rahien" <Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9dmgsu$n0l$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > In article <3afebc17$0$82825$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson wrote:
>> > >
>> > >------=_NextPart_000_000A_01C0DBAB.BDE843E0--
>> > >
>> > <SNIP>
>> >
>> > Linux is the fastest growing OS on the planet with MS being a distant
>> > second.
>>
>> That *is* surprising.
>> Linux is small, it *has* where to grow.
>> MS is huge, it has little where it can grow to, and yet it manage to be a
>> seocnd? Impresive.
>
>BeOS grew from 5 users to 20. That was a 400% increase. BeOS has
>a higher growth rate than Linux! BeOS will take over the world!
Ever heard the fable of the rice and the chess board?
--
Neil Cerutti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
*** You lost a plot of land because the claim was not recorded.
***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Mark)
Subject: Re: What does Linux need for the desktop?
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 15:43:56 GMT
|> >OK, I hear people say that Linux is not ready for the desktop. I always wonder
|> >why. OK, I'll concede games, but that is a different story all together. For
|> >now, lets focus on the office/home office desktop, i.e. what would keep a
|> >company from going all Linux?
|> >
|> >Having these answers in a neat little HOWTO (How To run your company on Linux)
|> >would be sort of cool.
I believe there are such documents available. A quick search should
return something of value.
|> Linux is missing a accounting system for small to medium businesses.
|Assuming you are talking about MYOB. Maybe it is possible to run it with
|wine? I am not too sure, some one may have to correct me on that one.
I'm not of the belief that many small business owners are even going
to ponder installing and configuring Wine to run windows accounting
packages. Why not just run them under windows since you need windows
anyway?
|> Linux is missing a free (both senses) groupware system (Lotus is not
|> free and not even cheap when you're looking at client licenses).
Collaboration - groupware - management programs are non on linux.
|There are solutions out there, I forgot which ones. I know there are
|iPlanet collaboration tools that available for Linux, however, I am not
|too sure about the quality, or reliability.
Exactly.
|> Linux is missing a project management tool like Microsoft Project (one
|> which can calculate correctly)
|
|How many people honestly use Microsoft Project?
You'd be surprised. How many larger businesses use PeopleSoft?
|> Linux is missing a not too heavy office package (StarOffice is too
|> heavy for systems with 64MB or less).
Koffice is a work in progress, but with potential for what you
describe.
|I've had no problems runing Linux on 64MB Ram w/ staroffice, cd playing
|in the back ground and a download happening the background as well.
Running it, and running it with snap and aplomb are two distinctly
different things. I found the performance of SO horrific with 96.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:05:21 GMT
Said Chronos Tachyon in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001
>On Sun 13 May 2001 12:47, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> [Snip]
>>>
>>>Actually, /dev/random really *does* provide true randomness. Computer
>>>hardware isn't perfectly deterministic, especially with regard to timing,
>>>so drivers can extract small amounts of noise from the environment and
>>>feed it to the /dev/random bitpool. It can't provide the quantity that a
>>>dedicated source of randomness (like the i810 chipset's RNG) can churn
>>>out, but it is cryptographically secure.
>>
>> Did I say that true randomness was necessary to be 'cryptographically
>> secure"? If I did, I should have said "perfectly cryptolographically
>> secure". In the real world, security is a matter of increasing levels
>> of obfuscation; to be mathematically indecipherable is to be simply
>> indecipherable, so codes cannot be perfect and have value.
>
>From a practical standpoint, you are correct, but in cryptology the term
>"cryptographically secure" is synonymous with true randomness, and anything
>less than true randomness is insecure.
Really? Are you sure? I did not know that. Thanks.
--
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: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:05:22 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001
>On Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:52 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 06:54:33
>>>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>
>>>>>T Max needs a good spanking.
>>>>
>>>> Now if only if one of you were capable of giving it to me... ;-)
>>>
>>>We did, in another thread. "DirectX sucks". Boy did I lead you to water!
>>>You fell for it, too!
>>
>>Take your bruised ego somewhere else, Pete. Neither your delusions nor
>>your feigned ridicule are of interest.
>
>Pete isn't the one with the bruised ego, that award goes to you.
Oh, well, my mistake then.
HEYYY! WAITAMINUTE!
....
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>At
>least Pete backs up his claims with facts, or the steps he used to
>create whatever problem he is having at the moment.
>What do you do?
>Complain and rely on old tag lines.
>You lack of facts is getting quite old.
>flatfish
Flop flop little fishiehead. Watch the fishiehead flop.
--
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: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:05:23 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001
21:03:07 GMT;
>On Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:54 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>because flatfishiehead can't even *imagine* the difference between an
>>application and a branded software program.
>
>More trash form T-Max.....
>I don't imagine getting my work done. It is only a pipe dream under
>Linux.
>So tell me T-max, what do you, the Linux community have in the way of
>applications I mentioned?
>I'm all ears...
>Facts please, and don't try and diffuse the topic to some political
>statement like you usually do...
You seem to be misreading my words, nimrod. :-D
--
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: 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: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:05:24 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001 22:45:11 GMT;
>On Sun, 13 May 2001 17:47:58 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 12:26:07 GMT;
>>>He can sue the contributory infringer alone. Still
>>>there has to be at least a potential direct infringement involved
>>>before there can be contributory infringement, so in the case of
>>>RIPEM, if the end users are not an infringing, it would seem that
>>>no case for contributory infringement could be made.
>>
>>In that language, RIPEM is actually the one who would be liable for
>>contributory infringement; the end-user would be the 'unprosecuted
>>direct infringer'. It doesn't matter how you apply the teleology; the
>
>Well the difficultly is that the GPL says that the license does not
>apply to running the code, so there is no GPL license violation when
>someone dynamically links to a GPL'd library in order to run a program.
>Perhaps you can point me to the provision you claim is being
>violated by the end-user.
The FSF would be the ones to ask; they're the ones making the claim.
I've lost interest in the argument, TBH. Feel free to claim it must
mean I didn't know what I was talking about and was only trolling for
years with my 'accurate, consistent, practical copyright' crapolla.
But buy my book when it comes out. No license required. Scan it and
post it on the Internet and I'll sue your ass off. But to be honest I
don't care if I win; I'll be rich either way, if it is worth ripping
off. Some publishers will probably want a piece of your ass, but I'm
the one with the exclusive rights to my works. So for their benefit
(for the contract which causes them to give me money) I'm willing to
pretend that there is some metaphysical affront which has occurred. As
an author, I can't for the world dream of a reason to not want people to
read my words. Software programmers don't seem so keen, so I don't
really care any more what the FSF says, and you should take up your
cause with them, not me.
--
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: 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: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:05:25 GMT
Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 14 May 2001 00:02:42
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>>
>> The value of intellectual property is whatever someone pays for it.
>> Therefore Napster contributors, having paid nothing for the songs they
>> trade, cannot ever be guilty of direct infringement, nor can Napster be
>> guilty of contributory infringement.
>
>Come on, Max. Is your arguement really "If I steal something then what
>I stole really has no value because I didn't pay anthing for it."?
You seem to have switched the roles around and not realized it makes a
difference. Infringement is not "stealing". If I copy some words, then
what I copied has no monetary value unless I charge someone for them.
It makes a big difference when you throw out the metaphorical claptrap
and leave the facts and their analytical meaning, doesn't it?
No,
>Max, the value is established in the normal market. I believe a court
>would normally go by the MSRP.
--
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: 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: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:05:27 GMT
Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001 23:57:06
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 12 May 2001 05:24:08
>> >"Jeffrey Siegal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> [...]
>> >Yes, obtaining 'your' copy must be done with the permission of
>> >the copyright holder. [...]
>>
>> Pedant point that isn't so pedant: no you don't. The guy who
>> distributed it to you does, but only if he made more than 10 copies or
>> it is worth more than $1000.
>>
>> If someone pirates software and sells it to you, you still own it and
>> can use it to your heart's content. The only reason the police could
>> take if from you is as "evidence", and they'd need a damn good reason to
>> need YOUR copy. The pirate is the one who broke the law, not you,
>> unless you should reasonably have known it was a copy.
>>
>> Thus, the "guilt-drive" by MS & cronies to try to make pirating software
>> some horrible crime like stealing money from someone's bank account.
>
>Actually that raises an interesting question. If you "buy" a pirated
>piece of software, aren't you breaking the law by "receiving stolen
>goods", regardless of whether you knew it was stolen or not? Is buying
>a stolen copy of CorelDraw any different from buying a stolen watch?
Precisely this question came up about a year or two ago. I am the one
that brought up the argument, in fact. I checked with a couple lawyers,
in fact, and they assured me of what I already knew was true: there is
no way to be held liable for receiving stolen goods unless it would be
unreasonable to presume that you didn't know for a fact that they were
pirated. This explains MS's love for the 'piracy' smoke-screen for all
of their scams. It serves a dual purpose of improving their grip on
monopoly profits AND ensures that nobody could manage to mount a
plausible defense.
As for whether buying pirated software knowingly being like buying
stolen goods, the very idea is ludicrous for two reasons. First,
watches aren't infinitely replicatable at practically zero cost. The
'theft of profits' for the mega-corp is a dangerously obscure argument,
if you ask me, too awfully much like using copyright to justify some
obscure form of profiteering. Second, why the hell would anybody be
stupid enough to *pay money* for pirated software. If you don't care
about copyright, you're much safer just buying one copy and copying it
yourself. As long as the cost of the full legal copy is less than the
total number of pirated copies, there's no reason at all to buy a
pirated one, and some reason not to. Quality control, a legal reg key,
and potentially at least one set of documentation.
Software piracy is either commercial (and as I've demonstrated, a rather
doomed proposition without resorting to fraud and trademark infringement
and all the other real crimes and misdemeanors) or it is fair use, quite
simply. The DeCSS authors are heroes, and Napster users are not acting
unethically in any way.
'Nuf said.
--
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: 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: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:05:28 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 14 May 2001 00:20:32 GMT;
>On Sun, 13 May 2001 23:57:06 GMT, Greg Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Actually that raises an interesting question. If you "buy" a pirated
>>piece of software, aren't you breaking the law by "receiving stolen
>>goods", regardless of whether you knew it was stolen or not? Is buying
>>a stolen copy of CorelDraw any different from buying a stolen watch?
>
>I think you have to distinguish copyright infringement from theft of
>a copy here. I think the buyer of pirated copies is simply guilty
>of copyright infringement,
That would be the seller. The buyer is completely free of guilt, unless
he knew it was pirated, in which case he *still* hasn't committed the
crime you claim he has.
>and the laws concerning receiving stolen
>goods are not applicable.
Unless he knew it was pirated. It would still be a very tough sell to a
DA, but it could be argued. "Receiving stolen intellectual property"
itself isn't a statute, but that doesn't matter even a tiny bit.
Probably. Maybe, anyway. It could happen.
>I'm not sure what protection a bonafide purchaser for value has
>with respect to copyright infringement, but I wouldn't be surprised
>if the answer were completely different from the answer when a theft
>of goods is concerned.
The value of both is the price they demand in a free market, so I
wouldn't expect it really should make any difference. Really.
--
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: 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: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:05:30 GMT
Said Stefaan A Eeckels in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Jeffrey Siegal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Lee Hollaar wrote:
>>> That said, the practicality is that the copyright owner somehow needs
>>> to find out about the creation of the derivative work to file suit. But
>>> that could be through other than its distribution, such as you bragging
>>> about it to somebody who tells the copyright owner. And even if there
>>> is no actual damages to the copyright owner, statutory damages could
>>> still be available.
>>
>> I would say that the most relevant real world situation where this would
>> arise would be a business using a modified (without authorization)
>> version of a program in their business. In that case, there might be
>> employees who know about it and could tell the copyright owner.
>
>I thought that adapting a legally obtained program to one's
>needs was specifically allowed by the law.
That depends on if you mean "the law" being the metaphoric law, always
binding all people metaphysically, and including both statute and all
court precedent, or just the statute part. The statute part I would be
doesn't have or need any specific exception; of COURSE you're allowed to
modify anything you have purchased to suit your needs. You haven't
'purchased' the software, you may say, but I will counter that you also
can't modify the license, so unless you can modify the software, you got
ripped off because you bought nothing for something.
--
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: 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: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:05:32 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001 21:32:58
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> No, those choices don't exist. They are therefore not choices which are
>> denied; they are simply not choices.
>
>That's what I said. They don't exist because they aren't allowed to exist.
Glad you've got a handle on the metaphysics.
--
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: 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: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:05:33 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001 21:51:11 GMT;
>On Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:02 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>No court has any power to usurp Congress's power. State legislature's
>>don't, either. What's your point?
>>
>...
>>
>>Most contract law is state law, is what I think you're trying to say,
>>and therefore contracts in violation of copyright are not valid. I
>
>Apparently you do understand my point. I didn't go quite so far though.
>I believe some courts will uphold provisions that do preempt federal law.
They can do that all they want, and get over-ruled on appeal to the
Supreme Court, but they are ALWAYS shut down at that level, so, no, they
can't, basically. Federal law cannot be contradicted by any state law;
that's just the way it works. No contract can 'preempt' either state
law OR federal law.
[...]
--
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: 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: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:05:34 GMT
Said Isaac in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001 22:31:14 GMT;
>On Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:04 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>I also don't have any problem with the FSF prohibiting the use of their
>code or libraries in commercial products. I have an issue with their
>chose line of defense.
Well, it is the only line of defense which is in any way effective for
their goals, so I don't understand how you could have an issue with it.
Not that I want to start up the whole damn argument.
--
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: 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: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:05:34 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 14 May 2001 00:50:04
[...]
>I think the RIPEM folks were very surprised to find out this
>position.[...]
I'm sure they were. So were you, in the past, I believe I recall
hearing, and I know that Roberto feels he was, as well.
Sour grapes, or just making assumptions you shouldn't because you
mistook convention for law? Who knows. Let it rest.
--
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: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:05:35 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May 2001
>On Sun, 13 May 2001 17:48:06 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Pete, you are the one that admitted that you were only pretending that
>>you didn't know that DirectX sucks, or why. So how am *I* the one who's
>>trolling, saying "DirectX sucks", and then not proceeding into an
>>argument about Windows and monopoly crapware, on
>>*comp.os.linux.advocacy*. Perhaps you've been camped out here too long,
>>pretending to be playing a devil's advocate, to forget that you are the
>>one who is trolling.
>>
>>The discussion was quite interesting, and made the point far more
>>convincingly than I possibly could have done, had I responded to your
>>trolling; is this not so?
>>
>>If you want the true, honest, correct answer to why it took me "so
>>long", it was because it was a learning exercise. For you. I hope you
>>didn't miss it entirely, and can benefit from it, if only in retrospect.
>
>You can't even figure out who you are replying to. Must have been a
>bad day for Agent under Wine.
>
>Pete and I challenged your "Direct-X sucks" statement and you balked
>at a response. Only when we both answered our own question, because
>you avoided it, did you come up with something of minute substance.
>
>Sorry T-Max but you look like an idiot here and would be best off
>dropping the topic.
>
>flatfish
I just wanted to post it again. Flathead is just that kind of troll.
--
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: Mon, 14 May 2001 16:05:36 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 13 May
[...]
>> > > Provide the REST of the citation.
>> >
>> > Why? You can't seem to grasp the relevant portion. I don't think I'll put
>> > anymore up for you to misread.
>>
>> Gee, does this translate into... "if I put any more up, they will see
>> parts incriminating Microsoft"?
>
>No. It means just what it says. You can't grasp the section that your
>purporting MS to have broken. No one else including the DOJ has accused MS
>of breaking any other section besides IV (E) (1) which is posted above,
>along with the appeals court remarks.
>Any more dumb shit questions?
Yea; are you always this stupid? The appeals court made rather clear in
the MS II decision that they were quite well aware that the consent
decree was useless toilet paper, legally, and they aren't stupid enough
to miss the fact that both Win95 and Win98 are both matters of bolting
products together to force consumers to buy monopoly crapware.
I won't be bothering to post citations, don't bother to ask. Just check
the seventeen MONTHS of so or debate that David Petticord and I had on
alt.destroy.microsoft; they'd all be on Google, I think. Dave defended
the MS position, and even he knows your arguments are pathetic
fantasies.
--
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
******************************
