Linux-Advocacy Digest #109, Volume #35 Sun, 10 Jun 01 14:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: A Browser is a Browser (Mig)
Re: Dennis Ritchie -- He Created Unix, But Now Uses Microsoft Windows (Hal Burgiss)
Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals (Brock Hannibal)
Re: Will MS get away with this one? (Peter Hayes)
Re: A Browser is a Browser ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: More funny stuff. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (drsquare)
Re: More micro$oft "customer service" (drsquare)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (drsquare)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (drsquare)
Re: Linux dead on the desktop. (drsquare)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (drsquare)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 10 Jun 2001 16:19:08 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 08 Jun 2001
[snip]
> >They don't really need MS's source to do delegates,
> >any more than they need Sun's source to do the
> >rest of Java.
>
> Actually, Sun doesn't use "churn" to monopolize Java, as MS does on
> their platform, so you are, in fact, mistaken.
Sure they do. They keep changing the damn thing- especially
by adding new APIs that other Java vendors must
implement.
This is just exactly what MS does with Windows.
It means that Sun always has the latest and greatest
stuff *first*.
[snip]
> >You seem very sure that there is *no* overlap
> >between what a "profit seeking competitive firm"
> >might do and what a "criminal monopoly" might do.
>
> That is rather more astute of you to notice than I would have given you
> credit for, to be honest.
You seem unable to justify this presumption, as well.
> >It is not obvious why competitive strategies
> >that you would approve of (if there are any)
> >would not work for MS.
>
> They would work, but only competitively. If MS were to attempt to
> employ *any* competitive strategy, at any time (except what we might
> consider to be 'by accident'), then it would allow competition, thus
> destroying their monopoly power.
How so? Why would such actions 'allow competition'?
> It certainly should be obvious that
> only anti-competitive strategies allow maintaining monopoly power, since
> only anti-competitive strategies can provide monopoly power to begin
> with, or provide evidence of monopoly power, or describe the results of
> monopoly power.
I suspect that once again you are using MaxSpeak(tm). Let
me try to guess your meaning.
I'm guessing that "anti-competitive" means "results in
monopoly"; "competitive" must mean "results in
no monopoly".
Thus, it is trivial that MS will lose their monopoly
if they persue competitive strategies- it is the
definition of "competitive". It is trivial also
that any strategy MS may have used to
acheive their monopoly, since any such
strategy is by definition "anti-competitive"
How did I do?
If I got it right, then I think it is now your
turn to explain why "anti-competitive"
strategies are bad, or "competitive" ones good.
> There really is, as you surmised, absolutely no overlap between what is
> competitive and what is anti-competitive. There is, however, a great
> deal of confusion on the matter.
Or maybe I didn't do so well. My proposed redefitions
do permit overlap; an action might produce a monopoly
in one market and no monopoly in another. Is this
coherent with your understanding of these things?
[snip]
> >No. MFC is a framework and to use it you must
> >have the source. Licensing is required. Win32 is
> >the API under it, but it is not MFC.
>
> So MFC is covered by a license similar to GPL, forcing anyone developing
> an app relying on MFC components to be covered by a Microsoft license?
No, it isn't. MFC is under a typical MS EULA.
> This is the reading I'm getting, though I am sure it is mistaken.
Good call! :D
> I
> don't understand what a "framework" is, or why source is required;
Okay. I'll explain.
APIs are typically really low-level and often painful;
a framework papers over this, providing convient
access.
Frameworks are language specific; they permit the
programer to take full advantage of the language's
features, and they take care of mapping this to
the things the API understands- which are usually
quite limited.
> basically, I think you are just making up random abstractions to pretend
> that MS's monopolization somehow "makes sense" in terms of conventional
> software production.
I don't think this stuff about frameworks can
be used to argue that.
[snip]
> >> Did these other
> >> developers license Microsoft code to support this API?
> >
> >No. They write their own frameworks. Because
> >quite simply, MFC isn't very good.
>
> It isn't anything at all, from your description. It isn't the source
> code, but is some mythical 'framework'. But nobody uses it and it isn't
> any good?
Lots of people use it. It was available very early, and
a lot of code still uses it. Also it's well integrated into
MS's IDE, which is certainly a plus- for beginners, a big
plus.
It's still lagging behind its competitors substantially,
however.
> Please, don't bother explaining. It is trivial nonsense, and has
> nothing to do with the issues.
That's what I like about it. :D
[snip]
> >like J++'s delegates.
> >
> >Is Borland a villain? Is what they did reprehensible?
>
> Why would it be? They are hardly in danger of having monopoly power.
> What makes you think that they do?
So their actions are only going to be evil if they do
achieve a monopoly- retroactively evil, as it were?
This is a pretty blatant double standard.
> Just the fact that their action has
> a passing resemblance to some anti-competitive tactic that Microsoft
> uses?
It's precisely identical. It's even the same
feature. It's only legal because there's no
encumberance on the name C++, as there is
on Java.
[snip]
> >You need source to get any framework to work; in a sense,
> >that's what makes a framework different from an API;
> >it's why frameworks are usually easier to work with, and
> >it's also why can abandon backwards compatibility with
> >comparative impunity.
>
> You have managed to explain absolutely nothing. In this case, it makes
> some sense for you to correct that oversight, so go ahead and try to
> explain it in a way that makes sense this time. Perhaps if you provided
> some alternative example of a 'framework' besides Microsoft stuff?
Sure. Delphi is a framework. MetroWerks has one
called "PowerPlant", or they used to.
But the great granddaddy of frameworks was
MacApp, from Apple. On the Mac such frameworks
are very badly needed, because the API is so
awful. The frameworks make it civilized.
[snip]
> >Some of us use these products, and know how
> >good they are. (Or aren't, in some cases)
>
> Indeed, I've talked to many people who do. I've in general found that
> those who think Microsoft's tools are good show a relatively low level
> of competence and reason in other regards, and those that think they
> aren't good tend to show more intelligence and ability, outside the
> opinion on MS tools.
I don't think anyone with any sense would trust
your judgement on this.
> I imagine you can guess what conclusions can and should be drawn from
> this correlation.
I think you let your hatred of all thing MS color
your other judgements.
[snip]
> >No, he's right. Microsoft has an assembler, but the bulk
> >of their efforts in this area has gone into higher-level
> >kinds of things- especially IDEs, actually.
>
> They have proven themselves unable to compete, and so retreat to their
> leverage-based "integration" strategy, as usual. A sure sign that the
> results are going to suck, when someone thinks there is some reason they
> need to be bolted together.
There speaks someone who has never had to deal
with 'make'. :D
[snip]
> >It was. It was the best. Better Win16 compatibility
> >than Windows 95, as I understand it.
>
> Until the churn made the point academic. What was that, three months or
> so after the press got wind of the story? Windows 3.11, in fact, that
> half-assed add-on upgrade that came between Windows 3.1 and Windows for
> Workgroups, was apparently released solely to break OS/2's Windows
> compatibility.
You do say the damndest thigns sometimes. Windows 3.1
released solely to break OS/2's compatibility.
My. What can one say?
[snip]
> >You need to run out in front of the parade.
>
> You need not explain to me why it is fiscally impossible to overcome a
> monopoly through competitive actions.
I cannot explain it; and I've asked you repeatedly
to explain it, but you seem unable to do so
as well.
I think you just *want* this to be true.
[snip]
> >Everyone cares about marketshare, unless
> >they want to wind up like Apple has.
>
> Unless you want to be a successful multi-billion-dollar company? Next
> you'll proffer Sun or even IBM as a way to "wind up" if you should fail
> to attempt to monopolize.
No. IBM was very successfull for a very long time-
that it didn't last forever is, well, it's life.
Sun has, IMHO, not yet failed in their bid
to change the shape of the industry. Let us
not write them off just yet.
> Market share is inconsequential and meaningless unless your business
> model requires that you have substantial market share. This is
> "monopolization", purely and simply.
Market share has a certain relationship to revenue. :D
> A valid business model refers to
> *sales*, volume, units, prices, distribution. "Share", as a percentage
> comparing your sales to putative competitors, has nothing to do with it,
> and no honest business person would ever have any reason to be concerned
> by it. Sure *marketing* people need to know about market share, because
> they need to determine how to increase *sales*, and comparing your sales
> to your competitor's sales is an easy way to accomplish this.
Well, at least you admit that it does matter. But in
the computer business it appears that high-volume,
low-price offerings are where the real money is-
sure, you can sell a low-volume, high-priced niche,
but you don't make nearly as much, and you can only
last as long as your niche does.
The industry changes so much that niches don't
last all that long.
> But in terms of making business decisions based on marketing
> information, market share is something that, in fact, needs to be
> consciously *avoided* as a factor, unless you seriously don't care about
> violating federal law.
Yes, I know you think that companies should
deliberately avoid success. Presumably they should
release crappy products so they can avoid taking
over too much of the market, if necessary.
Why you don't praise MS for doing this
I can't imagine. :D
------------------------------
From: Mig <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Browser is a Browser
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:23:09 +0200
Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> No, you don't.
> You get either shoddy goverments with pressure groups with *extreme*
> power. More power than the big parties, actually.
> Or you get the consent of the two sides to try and live together, which
> mean that there *isn't* an opposition.
> Right now the opposition here is about 10% of the parliment, and that is
> because they *represent* the other side.
>
> Beside, right now there is:
> A> Extreme right.
> B> Mild-extreme right.
> C> Right.
> D> Mild Right.
> E> right wing Center
>
> And that is *it*.
Its in Israel? The numner of partys resembles the numbers here... I
supposed that the people in control of whos going to be primeminister whas
the small center partys - just like here.
I doubt that i government with so many political parties like the Israelian
can be so extreme - even in the current situation it seems to me that
Israel is pretty much like Europe (have not been there so i dont know)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Hal Burgiss)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Dennis Ritchie -- He Created Unix, But Now Uses Microsoft Windows
Reply-To: Hal Burgiss <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:34:07 GMT
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:08:00 GMT, Chris Ahlstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Maybe that's why Lucent is doing so badly ... the corporate pressure.
>
Or Windows ;)
--
Hal B
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Spamtrap: [EMAIL PROTECTED] and [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: soc.men,soc.singles,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh
Subject: Re: Why homosexuals are no threat to heterosexuals
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Brock Hannibal)
Date: 10 Jun 2001 10:03:30 PDT
"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<9fvu1k$skg$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Wouldn't that depend on what exactly you were teaching them
>> about it? While I don't shield my son from the fact that
>> homosexuality exists I don't think I want to teach him that it's
>> desirable or glamorous. I must admit the homosexual lifestyle
>> and sexual behaviors are not something that I want my male child
>> aspiring to. There, afterall, are many consequences of that
>> choice that might not include the kinds of outcomes I want for
>> my son. I think at 10 years old as his gender related sexuality
>> is just emerging, I don't want people preaching the benefits of
>> homosexuality to him. Just as I prefer not to allow people to
>> preach their religions to him. I'll handle teaching him about
>> love, life and religion, the schools can handle teaching him
>> reading, writing and arithmetic, thank you very much.
>
>Lets say, in theory, your son has a pretty normal (well, as normal
>as you can be) hetrosexual up bringing, and learns to
>accept/tolerate people with different sexual preferences, and you
>and your son have an open father-son relationship in which your
>son can talk to about anything. However, hypothetically, at the
>age of, say, 17, he comes to you and says, "dad, I'm gay". What
>would your response be?
>
>Matthew Gardiner
In all truthfulness I can't say I would be happy about it. I'm not
sure how I would respond, exactly. I wouldn't disinherit him or
anything like that. I would try to make sure he really knew what all
the consequences of his choice would be. That's about the best I
can do in this hypothetical situation.
None of that has anything to do with the schools teaching about
homosexuality. It's not their role, in my opinion.
--
Brock
"Put a $20 gold piece on my watch chain so the boys'll know I died
standin' pat"
------------------------------
From: Peter Hayes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Will MS get away with this one?
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:14:34 +0100
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 03:20:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Said Peter Hayes in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 09 Jun 2001 20:05:42
> >On Fri, 08 Jun 2001 19:35:39 -0600, Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >wrote:
> [...]
> >This really sums up all that is wrong with Microsoft.
> >
> >They produce OSs that brought computing to the masses.
>
> That really sums up all that is mistaken about your thinking.
Really Max, learn to control your anti-Microsoft reflexes :-)
Who were the major players in the early 80's home/office computing market?
IBM/Microsoft with their PC/XT and Apple with the Lisa and Macintosh. DOS
and, later, Windows, together with the cloning of the IBM BIOS outcompeted
Apple's closed expensive hardware/software solution.
Be ever so slightly grateful to IBM/Microsoft, else we'd be hostage to
Apple. With their closed architecture Apple would be far more predatory than
Microsoft.
You'd have a lot more to moan about then...
Peter
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: A Browser is a Browser
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:24:52 +0200
"Mig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:9g06to$38p$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> >
> > No, you don't.
> > You get either shoddy goverments with pressure groups with *extreme*
> > power. More power than the big parties, actually.
> > Or you get the consent of the two sides to try and live together, which
> > mean that there *isn't* an opposition.
> > Right now the opposition here is about 10% of the parliment, and that is
> > because they *represent* the other side.
> >
> > Beside, right now there is:
> > A> Extreme right.
> > B> Mild-extreme right.
> > C> Right.
> > D> Mild Right.
> > E> right wing Center
> >
> > And that is *it*.
>
> Its in Israel?
Yes.
> The numner of partys resembles the numbers here... I
> supposed that the people in control of whos going to be primeminister whas
> the small center partys - just like here.
> I doubt that i government with so many political parties like the
Israelian
> can be so extreme - even in the current situation it seems to me that
> Israel is pretty much like Europe (have not been there so i dont know)
Oh, the exterme right is about three miles and a half from the goverment
positions.
There *isn't* an extreme left at the moment.
But if you look at the political map from three years ago, you see that
where the goverment is today, the extreme right was then.
This trend continue, or so it seems. The whole political map is sliding to
the right.
And you've to understand something, currently the right/left are divided on
peace/security/terror issues (if anyone can find social differences, they
have a magnifying glass), and the position of the left in those areas was
always... shaky at best.
The left that we started this country with is right aligned in today's
terms. But we are getting back to the good old days, though.
This is depressing.
Mainly because I can understand and symetize with the positions of *all*
sides at the moment. I wouldn't feel like a cheater if I preached for the
left's position one moment, and the right's at the next.
And it's not only because they are so close at the moment.
Currently there is a pause in the action, (pause means that only one or two
people get killed in a weak, unfortontely). But anything might cause the
whole balance to shift.
One of the leaders of the left supported military action if another thing
happen.
That would've been impossible merely a year ago. And that is the *hard*
left. (Luckily, he's a sane hard left, we won't get into the insane hard
left).
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More funny stuff.
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:25:49 +0200
"mlw" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Ayende Rahien wrote:
> >
> > http://www.geocities.com/CollegePark/6174/com_lite.htm
> >
> > Just to note, I did 8 myself. The keyboard is just as good as ever.
> > But *damn* was it dirty.
> >
> > 6 & 9 & 11 are even more hilarious than the rest.
>
> The irony about this sort of thing is, as the UI wonks debate what *is*
> intuitive, they fail to realize that a computer simply is *not* intuitive.
<snip>
Well, this guy should know more about this than I do.
http://www.asktog.com/columns/006intuitvsfamiliar.html
And here is just something to heat the discussion:
http://www.asktog.com/columns/002advicetoapple.html
> A computer can not be as easy to use as a Microwave, unless of course, it
is a
> Microwave.
I agree with you, a computer is a general purpose machine, as such, it's
naturally more complex than a single purpose machine.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:26:43 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:%SLU6.71643$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "Woofbert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> I'm not sure putting sticky-notes in a copy of
> Time *does*, especially if it isn't done except
> by consumer, and only at that consumers individual
> discresion.
IANAL, but I believe that this fall under fair-use laws.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:31:09 +0200
"Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 18:11:30 +0200, Ayende Rahien <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I'm thinking that there has got to be a way to do this with NT, what
> > > with ACL's and all. Any pointers from the Winvocates?
> >
> > Strange, it's very easy.
> > Okay, here is how do to it:
> >
> > cacls *.* /t /p Everyone:W
> >
> > This should turn all the files (and all sub directirues) to write only.
>
> Ok, but some people do need to read them via a share, so what we'd
> really want to do is make it write-only to the anonymous ftp user and
> readable to everyone else. Coupled with the anonymous ftp user ID that
> you posted further in the thread, I think I see how to do this. Thanks.
cacls *.* /t /p Everyone:N
calcs *.* /t/p Group:F
cacls *.* /t/p IUSR_<MACHINE_NAME>:W
This is *not* the way to do it, BTW, it's merely a demonstration of how it
can be done.
This takes all rights from Everyone (always a good thing).
It give Full Access (not a good thing) to Group, which is the name of the
group of people who need access to it.
And it gives write access to IUSR.
You might want to explicably deny read & execute access, too, BTW.
You also should *never* give Full Access to anyone, give them just the
rights that they need.
But this should get you going.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[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, 10 Jun 2001 20:33:15 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:hiMU6.71689$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> I do realize, Max, that you do not actually care
> whether Windows is better or worse than this
> or that other OS, on a technical level. Thus, my
> technical comparisons are of no interest to you.
Just as a note, T. Max has already shown himself unable to grasp technical
concepts.
> But I think others might read these postings,
> possibly. :D
Yes, and they certainly like it.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 20:34:30 +0200
"Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:HPLU6.71636$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Don't they? I observe that some bookstores insert
> advertisements for themselves in books. Sure, they
> call them 'bookmarks'... :D
I know of a case where a publishing house put an advertisement *within* the
book's text.
Against the wishes of the author, too.
IIRC, it happened with the german edition of book 5 of Wheel of Time.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:43:36 +0100
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:29:26 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> If the bookshop did that then yes.
>> >
>> >How about if the bookshop sells you the
>> >yellow highlighter, as well as the book?
>>
>> How about if the bookshop defaults to highlighting the book for you.
>
>But it doesn't, you've to ask it to.
I don't think so.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: More micro$oft "customer service"
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:43:37 +0100
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:47:44 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"Josh McKee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 22:35:55 -0400, "Lance Togar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>[snip]
>> I believe the arguement revolves around the fact that the web author
>> is no longer in complete control over how their web content is viewed.
>> One cannot merely avoid this issue by "not buying it" because it is
>> the site visitors and not the site owner who will need to "not buy
>> it".
>
>OTOH, the web author never was in complete
>control of this. No two web browsers are the
>same about how they render things, you know.
Yeah, but I doubt this difference in rendering ever results in putting
extra links in.
>HTML is just not the right tool to use if you
>want that kind of control.
What would you use then? A giant .gif?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:43:39 +0100
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:24:41 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 18:54:02 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ("Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>> >"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> >> >It's pretty standard. Anyone who is a militant rabid defender
>> >> >of something is generally called a <term>inista.
>> >>
>> >> Erm, I haven't and I don't know anyone who's ever used such a term.
>> >> And wouldn't that mean Windows advocates would be known as
>> >> "shitOSinistas"?
>> >
>> >No, because people who use Windows are generally grounded and have
>> >nothing to prove or attack.
>>
>> No, I said Windows ADVOCATES. Learn to read you fucked up cunt.
>
>Heh, no call for that. What are you, 13 years old?
>
>*PLONK*
Well, seen as you seem to lack the ability to read, it's best that I
no longer talk to you.
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:43:41 +0100
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 14:18:55 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>> > >> >> Yes, crashing out of X-Windows back to a console is pretty routine.
>> >
>> > Of course, that is an outright lie.
>>
>> Come on. It's usually the first experience people have with X Windows.
>> Watching X crash back to a console prompt that is.
>
>No, the FIRST experience is editing that rediculous config file and
>trying to get your drivers and the clock rate and the resolution and
>all the other parameters set correctly.
Well, you must have done something severely wrong. Whenever I set X
up, it installs and configures all by itself, no drivers needed.
Windows on the other hand requires delving into the big pile of
floppies looking for obscurely placed drivers just to get out of
640x480 mode.
>Then, run startx and watch
>X crash and burn or lock the machine entirely, reboot, wait for
>fsck, then try it all again.
Well, it runs fine for me. Windows on the other hand...
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dead on the desktop.
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:43:42 +0100
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 16:30:52 +0200, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
("Ayende Rahien" <don'[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sat, 9 Jun 2001 20:08:00 -0400, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
>> ("JS \\ PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>>
>> >"drsquare" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> I somehow think not. You're looking at at least £60 for a new hard
>> >> disk.
>> >
>> >No I'm not looking at spending a dime on more storage, my HD is more than
>> >enough to fit Windows XP. So is most every other installed hard drive on
>> >earth (except yours I guess).
>>
>> Where have you got the statistics for that statement from?
>
>Starthing from 1996, 90% of HD sold were > 1GB.
And a 1GB hard disk is big enough for Windows XP and all the software?
------------------------------
From: drsquare <[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
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2001 18:43:44 +0100
On Sun, 10 Jun 2001 15:44:10 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
([EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)) wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Jun 2001 21:01:48 +0100, drsquare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> Why are you against the left? And why are being so vague? What "left"
>> ideals do you not like? And why do you describe yourself as liberal
>> when you're clearly not.
>
>I'm sure you know this but...
>
>You have to decode Aaron-speak. To him, "left" and "liberal" are
>merely bins where he puts all the ideas he doesn't like, regardless of
>where they actually are on the political spectrum. To regular people,
>these words denote particular political philosopies, but to Aaron they
>are more like cuss words, devoid of any real meaning.
>
>So when Aaron calls someone a "liberal" or a "communist", it doesn't
>mean he thinks that they are on the political left, it just means he
>doesn't like them. A normal person would say "so and so is an
>asshole", but Aaron would say "so and so is a communist". HTH
He must be paranoid like that other poster, but about homosexuals as
well.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
