Linux-Advocacy Digest #79, Volume #35 Sat, 9 Jun 01 14:13:09 EDT
Contents:
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts getting
good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (T. Max Devlin)
Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:26 GMT
Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 8 Jun 2001 11:06:57
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>>
>>We happen to have one of the best records ever made, dickweed. Sure,
>>the French and the English (note the order, limey) were instrumental,
>>but then so were the ancient Greeks. The USA pretty much provided the
>>template for the modern sensibility of fundamental human rights, though,
>>and Americans are and rightly should be very proud of the fact.
>>
>>
>>That our record is not very good at all is a testament to the importance
>>of the fight, not any indication of losing ground or lack of
>>righteousness in the cause.
>>
>
>The fight is certainly important, and the USA has definitely helped improve
>the world in some areas. But it has also made some incredible mistakes, and
>shown an arrogance that astounds even seasoned a.d.m.'ers. The US has
>annointed itself big brother and policeman to the world - sometimes other
>countries ask for help, and sometimes they get it. But they also have a
>habit of butting in where they are not invited, and causing more harm than
>good.
The goal is to be just, not to be nice and warmly regarded.
>I suppose most countries are like that - it is just that with the US
>being the biggest (in terms of power), its actions speak the loudest, and it
>is the US who should be taking leadership in showing the rest of the world
>how to play fair, rather than being the schoolyard bully.
Schoolyard bully? You might have had a point, before you proved you
didn't have a point. You want to discuss the benefits of a
non-intercessionary foreign policy, fine. But if you have to start
prattling on about the USA being a 'schoolyard bully', then I'm afraid
you've simply made your bigotry obvious. Obviously, bigotry against a
nation is not a suitable position from which to try to chastise
patriotism in that nation's citizens.
--
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:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:27 GMT
Said . in alt.destroy.microsoft on 8 Jun 2001 16:24:44 GMT;
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 6 Jun 2001
>> 20:33:04 +0200;
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Edwards) writes:
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm a proud Yank. And the very notion that
>>>> a person should not be proud of his or her nation
>>>> is absurd. Everyone should be proud of their
>>>> heritage, and their home.
>>>
>>>Nationalism and religeous hate have caused more problems on this
>>>planet than anything else.
>
>> Why confabulate the two? Is it because your point that patriotism is
>> bad is so utterly weak that unless you throw religion into the same mold
>> you don't have a point, maybe?
>
>>>I'm Scottish and proud of it but I
>>>don't hate the English for what they have done in the past.
>
>> Then why are you whining like a child because someone else is proud of
>> where they are from?
>
>>>I'm
>>>all for getting away from nationalism.
>
>> You'd prefer everyone in the world thought the same way? That's called
>> bigotry, to think your way is the only right way. When taken to
>> national levels, it generally becomes fascist. Now do you understand
>> why Stephen called you a communist?
>
>>>As a yank I would keep
>>>quiet as your country doesn't have a very good record as far
>>>as most of the rest of the world is concerned (other than the
>>>despots you have aided in supressing their citizens).
>
>> We happen to have one of the best records ever made, dickweed. Sure,
>> the French and the English (note the order, limey) were instrumental,
>> but then so were the ancient Greeks. The USA pretty much provided the
>> template for the modern sensibility of fundamental human rights, though,
>> and Americans are and rightly should be very proud of the fact.
>
>While at the same time, with the other hand, murdering people at Kent State,
>Grant Park, The Bowery and Washington Square, etc. etc. etc.
As always, you can tell when someone's position is shakey when they
start using metaphoric, rather than analytic, speech. People were
killed at Kent State and these other places, certainly. They were not,
however, murdered.
>And that was just in the last half of the last century.
>Not to mention vietnam, nicaruagua, north korea, etc, etc, etc.
>Not to mention McCarthy.
>Or LBJ.
What about them? Are you under the impression I am denying they exist?
>Actually, the united states has one of the WORST records of human rights
>violations of any "civilized" country in the world.
Compared to whom? Perhaps our transgressions are simply more widely
known? And you are begging the question, I suppose, with the qualifier
of 'civilized'.
>We just like everyone
>to think its best so that we can get out of paying our yearly dues for membership
>in both NATO and the United Nations.
Like one has anything to do with the other. We have problems paying
dues because of all the Republicans; it doesn't have anything to do with
our 'image' in the global community. Though obviously the fact that we
get away with it is an indication of our political power.
--
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:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance... (was Re: Just when Linux starts
getting good, Microsoft buries it in the dust!)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:28 GMT
Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 8 Jun 2001 12:31:13
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>>Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 7 Jun 2001 11:16:05
>>>Stephen Edwards wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> [...]
>>>As you have noted here, there is a very big difference between blindly
>>>"loving your country" and rationally supporting its ideals and way of
>life.
>>
>>Yada yada yada...
>>
>>>There can be no pride in the sense of personal achievement for being born
>in
>>>a particular country, but you can well love your country for what it
>stands
>>>for. [...]
>>
>>This statement is something of a canard, David, which is why you sound
>>more-or-less like a jerk in this exchange. You made up the straw man
>>about 'pride in geographic location of birth' yourself to begin with.
>
>I didn't make this up - I am trying to sort out what other people in the
>thread mean, as it is obvious that people are not agreeing on terms, and are
>(as usual) flaming each other for things they did not mean. But I think
>perhaps Mart van de Wege put it more clearly than me.
Don't kid yourself. It is something of a habit for you, I've noticed,
to spout a lot of emotional metaphor, rather than any real concrete
statements. You too often go for the argument ad absurdum to really be
very informative. I won't second-guess you, so I'll presume that you
are actually trying to 'sort things out'. But your style is far too
inflammatory to be useful for that, so your efforts seem
counter-productive, if they are genuine.
--
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:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: European arrogance and ignorance...
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:29 GMT
Said drsquare in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:07:49
>On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:05:15 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] () in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 6 Jun 2001
>>20:33:04 +0200;
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Stephen Edwards) writes:
>>>>
>>>> No, I'm a proud Yank. And the very notion that
>>>> a person should not be proud of his or her nation
>>>> is absurd. Everyone should be proud of their
>>>> heritage, and their home.
>>>
>>>Nationalism and religeous hate have caused more problems on this
>>>planet than anything else.
>>
>>Why confabulate the two? Is it because your point that patriotism is
>>bad is so utterly weak that unless you throw religion into the same mold
>>you don't have a point, maybe?
>
>Or maybe because they're both equally guilty of causing problems.
We were discussing one of them. To bring up the other, particularly if
what you say is true, is nothing but confabulation intended to beg the
question to begin with. If you have to add religion to show that
patriotism is bad, then patriotism isn't bad.
>>>I'm
>>>all for getting away from nationalism.
>>
>>You'd prefer everyone in the world thought the same way? That's called
>>bigotry, to think your way is the only right way. When taken to
>>national levels, it generally becomes fascist. Now do you understand
>>why Stephen called you a communist?
>
>No, he just doesn't like the idea of communism. Are you saying that
>anyone who supports getting away from something is a bigot?
I think anyone who claims that they know how other's "should" act is
something of a fascist at heart. Simple bigotry I have no problem with,
which is why I support the ideal of patriotism.
>>>As a yank I would keep
>>>quiet as your country doesn't have a very good record as far
>>>as most of the rest of the world is concerned (other than the
>>>despots you have aided in supressing their citizens).
>>
>>We happen to have one of the best records ever made, dickweed. Sure,
>
>Well, if one of the best records ever includes slavery, religious
>opression, racial discrimination and nuclear bombing hundreds of
>thousands of innocent women and children, then the rest of the world
>must be pretty bad.
Unfortunately, it does, and unfortunately, it is.
>>the French and the English (note the order, limey) were instrumental,
>
>Oooh, good one. We're so upset now.
;-)
>>but then so were the ancient Greeks. The USA pretty much provided the
>>template for the modern sensibility of fundamental human rights, though,
>>and Americans are and rightly should be very proud of the fact.
>
>Humans rights? Yeah, as long as your white, rich, straight and
>Christian. Otherwise, the US of A just doesn't give a fuck about you.
Oh, bullshit. Pessimistic over-exuberance is not a rational 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:
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: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:31 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 06 Jun 2001
>[snip]
>> >I
>> >understand that one could write a Java program that
>> >emits a DB/2 database file, but I don't see why you'd
>> >want to, or why using WFC would make that easier.
>>
>> Are you familiar with the phrase "turing complete"? One could write any
>> program to do anything.
>
>Yes, and I know what it means, too. It does not
>mean that you can write a program to do anything,
>but rather anything that a turing machine can do.
I never claimed you could right a program to do "anything". Don't be a
such a putz.
>Turing machines can't emit DB/2 databases.
Again with the 'turing machines'. What is it with you? Do you think
any computer is a "turing machine"?
>Java *can*, because it has capabilities that
>turing machines do not- the ability to do stream
>I/O, in particular.
Now not even that definition works. What the heck are you talking
about?
>> Do you even HAVE a point, Dan? EVER?
>
>Sometimes. What I have here is a question: how
>is IBM involved in WFC, really?
I haven't the slightest idea. Why would it matter?
>[snip]
>> >So far you've claimed that MS partnered with others
>> >to produce MFC and WFC, but this hardly suggests that it would
>> >have been prohibitively difficult to do it themselves.
>>
>> No, the claim was that MS didn't actually author either MFC or WFC, but
>> paid others for them.
>
>That claim has not been made by anyone except
>you, so far. Care to substantiate it?
You are mistaken. I only repeat the claim I have heard others make.
These others are more technically aware of the details than I, so I'm
afraid you'll have to track them down for an explanation. I haven't a
clue who they might have been, but check Google; it was very recent.
>I certainly won't take your word for it.
You routinely reject facts, as well, though, so that's not a surprise.
>> This clearly suggests they are incompetent at
>> writing software.
>
>Hardly.
Why? If I claimed I was a great author, but used ghost writers for
everything I wrote, would that not suggest I might not be as competent
at writing?
>> >Who knows? MFC might have sucked less had MS done it
>> >entirely on their own. :D
>>
>> You would have to demonstrate how much it sucks first. Being an endless
>> task, you wouldn't have any opportunity for this imaginary "sucked less"
>> that "might" have happened. <*BIG STUPID GRIN*>
[...]
>> They cannot handle even the OS; they lifted most of what is touted as
>> "benefits of Windows" from others, as well.
>
>MS does their own implementations of these
>things, though. They seem to be able to handle
>that much.
What documentation do you have that this claim is true?
>> What they did write is badly designed.
>
>I think MS's software is frequently well
>designed, and often better designed than the
>competition.
We know that; again, it is not really much of a surprise. One suspects
you must stupid or dishonest to have such an opinion, though I realize
you regard that as bigotry. Or, rather, you pretend to.
>They rarely get the implementation right on
>the first try; it's the good designs they use that
>allow them to overcome this in later
>revisions of their software.
So why bother with the forced bundling, leveraged licensing, intentional
use of 'churn' to deter competition, and all the other anti-competitive
strategies. I mean, really, if MS were competent to even take other's
good designs and implement them well, as you pretend, they wouldn't need
to do all that. Considering the federal government seems to believe
they have laws against that kind of thing, you'd have to seriously
question whether you are just being stupid or dishonest in holding such
an opinion.
>Comparing the Macintosh's journey to OS X
>and Window's journet to Windows 2000 is very
>instructive in this regard.
You're babbling again, Dan.
>Forgive me if I snipped most of your
>post, but it was just content-free flamage,
>and I have nothing entertaining to say about
>it.
You never have, but the spanking will continue nevertheless.
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:32 GMT
Said Peter Köhlmann in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 8 Jun 2001
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>
>> I would be very interested in knowing how this is going. I will point
>> out that Scandinavia is rather socialist, so it doesn't have to be
>> efficient to run a big ISP on a mainframe for them to do it with some
>> success. On the balance, I would guess this is just a stupid idea by
>> silly people with no regard for fiscal responsibility.
>>
>As usual, Max can´t admit that he was wrong.
As usual, you have failed to show that I was in any way mistaken.
>The stuff you wrote is just complete BS to the extreme.
Your eagerness to declare victory is understandable, but one example of
someone supposedly trying to do something is hardly evidence that it is
ever actually cost-effective. I never said it was impossible for an ISP
to use a mainframe; I explained why it is never done (except for this
attempt in Scandinavia, which we don't know is a commercial venture to
begin with.) For all intents and purposes (save your desire to squirm
around) you have utterly failed to even address, let alone refute, the
argument. You certainly haven't shown it is efficient, cost effective,
or even actually feasible in the long term to use a mainframe as an ISP
server.
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:33 GMT
Said Dan Pidcock in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 10:10:14
>On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:05:34 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:45:03
>>>On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 14:37:22 GMT, T. Max Devlin
>>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In theory, an ISP could run thousands of hosts on one mainframe. Such
>>>> an ISP would go out of business, though. It is not an efficient way to
>>>> spend money, that's all.
>
>>>Lots of hosting providers
>>>offer "dedicated hosts", which is usually something like a Cobalt RaQ,
>>>for $200/month. A mainframe could do the same thing on one machine.
>>>There should be a breakeven point where the mainframe is cheaper per
>>>host, since the cost to add another is $0 vs ~$1000 for the RaQ. The
>>>only question is whether or not that point is within the capacity of
>>>the mainframe.
>>
>>And the answer is provided by the fact that it is not within the
>>capacity of the purchaser of the mainframe.
>
>What do you mean by that? The purchaser cannot afford the mainframe?
>They will not be able to run that many virtual machines on the
>mainframe? They will not have that many customers?
They will not be able to sustain a profit and stay in business.
>>It would be a massively
>>illogical approach. I can't believe you would think it is efficient.
>>Don't you understand distributed processing at all? Sure, it would be
>>*possible* to do everything on "one big computer". That doesn't make it
>>*efficient*, see? Neither from a technical engineering, nor from a
>>business economics, standpoint.
>
>Well from cursory examination it sounds like it should be efficient.
>Adding new virtual servers has minimal cost compared to $1000 for a
>real Raq. Please can you explain why it is not efficient, both
>technically and economically.
The benefits and advantages of distributed systems is not something I
should need to explain here. Suffice it to say that, among other
things, even with 'virtual servers', a monolithic system is not flexible
enough to be very cost-effective for Internet servers.
>>I don't need to have performed the calculations of either bits or bucks
>>to know this is the case. Your position is an argument from ignorance,
>>not a serious attempt to show that mainframes make cost-effective
>>network servers.
>
>And your argument is half stated. Your position appears to be
>knee-jerk mainframe hatred.
Well, you must be projecting. I have nothing against mainframes. It
sounds to me, though, like some people have knee-jerk love of
mainframes. Frankly, it doesn't matter how powerful they are, they
still aren't what you call 'scalable' platforms.
--
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:34 GMT
Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001 15:33:51
>On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 04:05:34 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Said Bob Hauck in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:45:03
>> >On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 14:37:22 GMT, T. Max Devlin
>> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >> In theory, an ISP could run thousands of hosts on one mainframe. Such
>> >> an ISP would go out of business, though. It is not an efficient way to
>> >> spend money, that's all.
>> >
>> >Have you actually calculated the costs?
>>
>> No, but I presume that ISPs have.
>
>So, you haven't calculated the costs, and you don't know what
>conclusion ISP's who have done so have come to.
Sure I do. Their conclusions, if they have considered the matter, were
obviously that mainframes were not cost-effective platforms. This is
conclusively proven by the dearth of ISPs implementing mainframes. One
attempt by national phone system trying to be an effective ISP hardly
refutes the argument.
>You merely "presume".
I also "presume" you have the intelligence to discuss things reasonably.
Trying to make it seem that my presumption is invalid, without any
information or reasoning at all to back you, is just something you
*assume* is going to be effective. You were mistaken.
>But please, don't let that stop you from making pronouncements on the
>subject.
>At least one ISP has done exactly what you say is so illogical.
So you agree it is illogical, and that one ISP doing it doesn't
magically make it logical, then?
>> >There should be a breakeven point where the mainframe is cheaper per
>> >host, since the cost to add another is $0 vs ~$1000 for the RaQ. The
>> >only question is whether or not that point is within the capacity of
>> >the mainframe.
>>
>> And the answer is provided by the fact that it is not within the
>> capacity of the purchaser of the mainframe. It would be a massively
>> illogical approach.
>
>I guess you'd better clue Telia in then:
> <http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-4028271.html>
What are you trying to say? I don't do the 'this link refutes you'
game. If you have information, give it to me. If not, admit it.
>> Don't you understand distributed processing at all?
>
>Do you? Or do you merely "presume" a lot of things?
I presume everything that I must in order to avoid assuming anything
ever. Have you never heard the word before, is that why you keep
bringing it up? You haven't answered the question; do you understand
anything at all about distributed processing?
>> I don't need to have performed the calculations of either bits or bucks
>> to know this is the case. Your position is an argument from ignorance,
>
>Now, _that_ is funny. You haven't calculated any costs, checked on
>what others have done, or posted any actual facts at all, merely
>"presumed", and you claim that _I_ am making an argument from
>ignorance.
This is a discussion, not a research project. You have done none of
these things either. I have provided logical reasons, however, why my
claims are true, and you have not. So, yes, _you_ are making an
argument from ignorance. And _I_ am not.
>Ok, I'll spell it out for you since you seem to be unable
>to do any research on your own.
>
>The CNet article above has a price included. The mainframe costs $3
>million and it will have 1500 virtual servers. That looks like $2000
>per virtual server to me, which is in the same ballpark with 1U PC
>servers. If the mainframe is cheaper to administer, which seems likely
>compared to 1500 PC's, then it is a net win. And as you add more
>virtual servers, it gets cheaper per server, rather than staying
>constant as with PC servers.
You seem to have missed the fact that these simplistic calculations have
already been provided. They are convincing, maybe, if you have a
simplistic idea of the requirements. It isn't as simple as that,
though, and you will find that any ISP that tries to use a mainframe
platform for network services is going to start losing money, despite
this optimistic bit of simple division. Maybe in a frictionless, ideal
world with a perfect and predictable economy, it could happen, just as
it can happen (such as with Telia) when there are no competitive
pressures, such as a nationalized telecommunications carrier.
But none of that changes the fact that a mainframe does not make a
cost-effective internet services platform, and never will. Think of it
like a square peg/round hole type of deal. Sure, you can get the square
peg to fit; just whittle it down to a round peg, first.
--
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.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:35 GMT
Said Stuart Fox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 1 Jun 2001 17:58:16
>"Charlie Ebert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, unicat wrote:
>>
>> With XP starting at $329 for the upgrade and $580 for
>> the base, do you realize that it will now cost a company
>> of 550 computer users a whopping 2.5 million dollars to
>> upgrade their fleet!
>
>Duh! Volume licensing...
Doh! Still millions of dollars.
>> They'll end up buying a NEW PC for everybody as buying the
>> software just won't work. You can't run XP on yesterdays
>> Pentiums and Pentium II's. It's a complete waste of time.
>
>Pentium II's should be fine, Pentiums no.
Only a moron would run XP on a PII. That's ludicrous.
--
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.arch,misc.invest.stocks
Subject: Re: The beginning of the end for microsoft
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2001 17:34:36 GMT
Said longhaul in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 05 Jun 2001 01:07:42
>Not to try and belabor the point but why do all you techies gang up on
>Gates' company and yell for government intervention.
Because Gates' company's actions are in violation of federal law. Doh!
>Are your anti
>thoughts based upon pride of Unix? Do you not believe that the
>fundamentals of MSFT offer a good investment? This seems to be a very
>emotional stock. Kind of like the environmentalists vs. big oil.
More like the cops vs. the robbers, actually.
>It's the Unix guru's vs. MSFT. Me? I'm just looking for a good
>investment and thought I had one (finally, way of the fact) in MSFT at
>about $60 this year.
Whoops. Guess you know about as much about investing as you do about
software.
--
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
******************************
