Linux-Advocacy Digest #515
Linux-Advocacy Digest #515, Volume #34 Mon, 14 May 01 21:13:04 EDT Contents: Re: The Economist and Open-Source (Roy Culley) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Roy Culley) Microsoft Admits To Backdoor In IIS [updated] (Roy Culley) Re: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?) (Roy Culley) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Chronos Tachyon) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (The Ghost In The Machine) Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Aaron R. Kulkis) Re: Microsoft Admits To Backdoor In IIS [updated] (Chronos Tachyon) Re: What does Linux need for the desktop? (Terry Porter) Re: LOMAC shocks Microsoft! ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) Re: OT Movies (Julester) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Daniel Johnson) EXTRA EXTRA MS ADMITS (Charlie Ebert) Security in Open Source Software (Ayende Rahien) Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick) Re: Win 9x is horrid (Craig Kelley) From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roy Culley) Subject: Re: The Economist and Open-Source Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 00:53:16 +0200 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Isn't regression testing to ensure that the additions/modifications donot cause problems to the rest of the software, in this case, Win2k, and the programs that run on it? That was what I was trying to convey but you have said it much better. It was Erik that brought up regression testing as a reason why Microsoft are so slow to get patches out. I had just pointed out that many of their patches for security bugs either do not correct the bug properly or introduce new security bugs. Now a back door has been discovoured in IIS. Their total lack of credibility in regard to security just continues to drop to lower and lower depths. -- 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) Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy Subject: Re: W2K/IIS proves itself over Linux/Tux Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 00:36:39 +0200 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In article 9dn5mq$pdb$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Ayende Rahien Don'[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Roy Culley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... In article GvbL6.45194$[EMAIL PROTECTED], Chad Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Roy Culley [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... Grief, you people are pathetic. Microsoft has lost the Internet server market. Remember, over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. That's including Office and such as well. How many were in Red Hat Linux and the software that ships with it? At least that many. Can't you read. Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW in 2000. A RECORD. Just 100? In *all* their products? Wow, that is pretty low. Have you considerred the bloody *amount* of software they have? Now, how many holes are there in a RH distribution? Can't you read? It was a record for security bugs found from a single comapny. And IIS was the worst. Now we learn that Microsoft has a back door in IIS. How bad does it have to get before people realise that Microsoft are just plain bad? -- 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) Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft Subject: Microsoft Admits To Backdoor In IIS [updated] Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 00:10:27 +0200 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/entrepreneur.html?s=smallbiz/articles/20010514/microsoft_ackno Is there no end to this company's negligence? -- 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: SUSE license (was: Linux Users...Why?) Date: Tue, 15 May 2001 00:45:45 +0200 Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Matthew Gardiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Rob S. Wolfram wrote: I think YaST is a mighty fine admin tool. I consider it a loss for the people at large that this tool cannot be reused in other distributions / OSes. maybe they (SuSE) could license YaST to other distro's? Maybe they (SuSE) could GPL YaST? I really do find it strange that a company that does so much for OSS (xfree, reiserfs, etc) made their admin tool proprietory. -- Over 100 security bugs in Microsoft SW last year. An infamous
Linux-Advocacy Digest #515
Linux-Advocacy Digest #515, Volume #33 Wed, 11 Apr 01 16:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Has Linux anything to offer ? ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (Chad Everett)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Paul Repacholi)
Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal ("Jon Johanson")
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Anonymous)
Re: What Linux console? (GreyCloud)
Re: What Linux console? (Neil Cerutti)
Re: lack of linux billionaires explained in one easy message (Anonymous)
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.comp.shareware.programmer,comp.editors,comp.lang.java.help,comp.lang.java.programmer,comp.lang.java.softwaretools,comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: Need your recommendation for a full-featured text editor
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 14:57:08 -0400
Goldhammer wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 17:06:06 GMT, Randall Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I spend much larger amounts on hardware and on other
software development tools. Then there is what I get paid for
doing stuff. I see that people don't want to pay a lot
for an editor.
If vi cost money, I'd buy a license.
But at the same time, editing is the one
thing that many of us spend the bulk of our time doing.
Right. Which is why so many of us prefer vi. When you
have to sit there editing stuff for hours and hours,
you eventually get tired of playing chords (Emacs) or
using a mouse (GUI-based editors like UltraEdit, TextPad).
You start wishing you just had an editor that would let you
do things as efficiently as possible, with the least amount
of carpal-tunnel abuse.
As for features like syntax highlighting -- sure, gvim
supports this very well. But say you're editing 20,000-line
Fortran 77 codes, day after day, month after month. The
syntax highlighting gets burned into your retina; it
becomes unbearable. I have to leave it turned off. This
feature just isn't that useful to me anymore, in any editor.
Neither are any features having to do with mouseclicks.
Syntax highlighting is useful for NOVICE programmers.
Most experienced programmers have used one-color text
for program code for years...
Some people want to be totally dedicated to Open Source
only and that is fine. But for those of us that are willing
to buy commercial dev tools I really don't think $300 is
too much for the most important tool we use.
It's not an ideological issue. People like vi because
it's a great editor. Who the hell wants to edit text
with a GUI editor? It's plain nuts. Think about it.
It's like using a GUI to drive your car.
--
Don't think you are. Know you are.
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
--
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis"
Linux-Advocacy Digest #515
Linux-Advocacy Digest #515, Volume #31 Tue, 16 Jan 01 20:13:04 EST
Contents:
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Gary Hallock")
Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Global Configuration tool (WAS: Re: linux does NOT suck (oh yesitdoes) )
("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Who LOVES Linux again? ("Kyle Jacobs")
Re: you dumb. and lazy. ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux is easier to install than windows ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Another World's Fastest Parallel Supercomputer running Linux
([EMAIL PROTECTED])
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: Linux is crude and inconsistant.
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:26:12 -
On Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:06:34 GMT, Kyle Jacobs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Mandrake market's itself as a simple, desktop Linux. If there is a
problem
that YOU concider a "duh" problem, then it's a GENERAL problem to be
dealt
Except that's not even the issue.
I dispute the so called problems as they are stated.
Ah, yes, that's right, you deny any existance of a problem, period.
If they're posted anywhere else, I would take them at face value.
If they are posted here, I take the well known reputation of
the complaintant into account.
I never even attempted to claim that the facts as
represented weren't problematic.
That's because you outright deny problems exist.
Certainly. I have firsthand experience that is contradictory.
Are you arrogant enough to have me discount my own firsthand
experience as an actual user of the widget in question?
with. Just because YOU know how do fix it doesn't mean that the problem
Try to argue against the position, not your distortion of it.
I am. You inist that NO problem exists. Care to imply WHY you disbelive
problems reported here?
You and your cabal have no interest in experiencing a
functional, working Linux installation
.
doesn't exist, nor that the problem isn't a "problem" because YOU can
live
with it.
It's not just Mandrake either. There are a lot of user interface snafu's
present in a lot of desktop Linux's, snafu's that you chalk up to "user
incompetence" when it's just a problem of changing the UI to accomidate
THE
USER, not THE POWER USER, THE ADMINISTRATOR, or YOU.
That is true of GUI's in general. The comes from users in general
failing to approach the system from an abstract (general purpose)
point of view.
You mean YOUR "expierenced" point of view. The entire world is ready to
embrace a Linux, but people like you are unwilling to give it to them.
I let people use what they want to use. I am not some
sick megalomania such as the likes of you. I actually
have no problem not being a part of the 'largest crowd'.
I'll gladly enable your use of whatever other option
you choose.
I only object when you start interfering with mine through slander.
As soon as they encounter anything unfamiliar, they can't cope.
The same could be suggested for you. If you encounter a pure-GUI
enviroment, you just can't cope. Yet YOU expect, no demand that users cope
I've been using pure GUI enviroments quite likely longer than
you have even been computing. Considering your strange ideas
about Win 3.x, this is doubly likely.
OTOH, I do find objectionable interfaces in general that indulge
in far too much information hiding.
The hardware configuration in NT5 is a great example of this.
with your way of doing things. Time to make a consession.
One might just as well run a cheap DOS box at that point.
They are. They like it.
--
Regarding Copyleft:
There are more of "US" than there are of "YOU", so I don't
really give a damn if you're mad that the L/GPL makes it
harder for you to be a robber baron.
|||
/ | \
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: alt.linux.sux
Subject: Re: you dumb. and lazy.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2001 00:26:22 GMT
On Tue, 16 Jan 2001 23:58:33 GMT, "Kyle Jacobs"
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Except the application is never the problem under Windows, as that DAE is
controlled by directsound drivers.
Exactly!!
Click the little box in CDROM properties and away it goes..
Linux-Advocacy Digest #515
Linux-Advocacy Digest #515, Volume #30 Wed, 29 Nov 00 00:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum ("Chad C.
Mulligan")
Re: Things I have noticed (kiwiunixman)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Linux growth rate explosion! ("Les Mikesell")
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
Re: Linux for nitwits (Bob Hauck)
Re: Statistic about this bigot group (Bob Hauck)
Re: Statistic about this bigot group (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Bob Hauck)
Re: The Sixth Sense (Bob Hauck)
Re: Windoze 2000 - just as shitty as ever (Bob Hauck)
Re: The Sixth Sense ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Of course, there is a down side... ("Chad C. Mulligan")
Re: Whistler review. (kiwiunixman)
From: "Les Mikesell" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:13:41 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:900dr0$5pbqk$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"Corneil du Plessis" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:900d6e$kaq$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Only Microsoft expects their customers to upgrade everything when they
make
a change.
I still have a win95 running word 6 on a 486 12MB
It's being used daily.
Word 6? Hmm, hardly the first version of that product. Did you come
to the party late or are you just conveniently forgetting the cycle through
the earlier versions - and the fact that for quite some time after Word97
came out and was shipped bundled with a lot of new machines you had
no way to access documents in that format?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: "Chad C. Mulligan" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux 2.4 mired in delays as Compaq warns of lack of momentum
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:19:31 GMT
"Les Mikesell" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:cPHU5.25238$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
"Chad Mulligan" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:luFU5.446$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
No, it was Novell that was providing most people the functionality
that MS couldn't. I used ATT unix myself back then, with something
very similar to samba that they called the 'Starlan DOS Server' and
Used that one my self.
It was interesting because the original version used an ATT proprietary
transport protocol and actually included a DOS version of the server
as well as clients. Then it was updated to use an OSI transport (back
when phone companies still believed that OSI was going to replace
TCP 'real soon now'). The OSI version was the only one available
on the '486 when SysVr4 was released, and it was never done for
the 3B1 so we had to go through a weekend of destruction where we
tossed the 3B1's and upgraded all the 3B2's and clients in order to
be able to use a 486 server at all. Then there was an OSI stack
for Windows-for-WorkGroups to match, but this was never done
for Win95.
I never went the 3Bx route, my first server was a 6386 with UNIX on it. The
proprietary ATT protocol was a tweaked OEM version of LANManager just like
3Com's network was at the time.
through an assortment of upgrades this evolved to 'StarGroup' and
was a WFG/Win95 compatible netbios-over-tcp server - but it
never had to deal with the 32Meg partition limits. Everything
migrated transparently to Linux/samba eventually. I recall one of
That's because it's the same thing a LanMan Server Unix port.
And by that time TCP was added besides OSI and everything but
email could use either. This allowed a fairly smooth switch to
TCP on the client side.
Yeah it was a great little system. My $10K, 20MHz 80386 Server with 4MB RAM
and a whopping 300MB ESDI disk happily supported 100+ users for about three
years, even loading software like Lotus, WordPerfect and dBase from the
network.
my friends trying to install the MS LanMan server back then and
it couldn't deal with a 9 gig SCSI drive that he had been using under
Netware. Great server design...
What 9gig SCSI was available then? Hell up to Ver 9 HPUX couldn't
handle
more than 2 GB an that was in '95.
It could have been even smaller, but whatever it was it had worked
without problems on Netware.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
From: kiwiunixman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Things I have noticed
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 04:22:18 GMT
Thank you James for
Linux-Advocacy Digest #515
Linux-Advocacy Digest #515, Volume #29Sun, 8 Oct 00 04:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Do all Debian users have such bad attitudes? ("mmnnoo")
Re: programming languages and design (FM)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: welcome to the world of objects (Steve Mading)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why is MS copying Sun??? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (T. Max Devlin)
Re: To all you WinTrolls (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Winvocates and Linvocates: What do you use your desktop OS for? (Jim Broughton)
Re: Migration -- NT costing please :-) (Shannon Hendrix)
From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.arch,comp.lang.c,alt.conspiracy.area51,comp.os.netware.misc,comp.protocols.tcp-ip,comp.lang.java.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why is MS copying Sun???
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 02:55:03 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chad in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
"Matt Kennel" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
On Wed, 04 Oct 2000 09:54:00 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:
:IBM's GREATEST MISTAKE was making a machine which anybody could
:copy in his garage.
As I remember the story, they published all the hardware specification
and BIOS disassembly assuming that if anybody tried to make a 100% copy
that IBM could easily sue them out of business.
Compaq did make a copy and IBM was shocked to lose the suit, and
the market thereafter.
Compaq didn't make a copy, they reverse engineered it and proved
that the engineers that reversed it had not looked at the IBM specs
so there was no direct copying.
Except reverse engineering software doesn't require a clean room, as
proven by the Sega v. Accolade, Vault v. Quaid, Lasercomb v. Reynolds,
and Sony v. Connectix cases.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
==USENET VIRUS===COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ==
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
=== Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ==
--
From: "mmnnoo" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Do all Debian users have such bad attitudes?
Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2000 06:54:04 GMT
Jason A. Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:FuPD5.43352$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
Sorry if the subject sounds like flamebait, but I am getting so tired of
all the RedHat bashing being done by Debian users, especially on slashdot!
snip
I think there is some concern is of being 'forced' to use RedHat. Some
people
(who should be knowledgeable) are predicting that convergence and darwinism
will lead us to the one true distro:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-2948506.html?tag=st.ne.1002.thed.ni
Combine this with a perception that RedHat Linux leans more towards turning
a
profit than catering to the preferences of knowledgeable users. "RedHat vs.
Debian"
embodies concern about the divergent paths Linux might take.
Of course debian isn't a company and can't be driven out of business by
anyone.
Still, whoever has the most resources to pour into development might exert
the
most influence on the future of Linux For instance, the Linux community
might be
lead towards a very Windows-like desktop environment rather than something
more
groundbreaking. Commercial releases might not bother to support other than
RedHat
(not sure about how the average debian user feels about installing
propriatary software
though). Linux developers might not bother to package other than rpm's.
Some would dispute your assertion that Debian and RedHat are so similar. I
suspect you are unusual in having been a user of both but an administrator
of
only RedHat. More than other Unices and even Windows, Linux has a
strong tradition of being administered by the user. Quite often the
administrator
is the primary user. To my mind, distributions are differentiated *mainly*
by
their administrative facilities. Debian shines in this area.
--
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (FM)
Subject: Re: programming languages and design
Date: 8 Oct 2000 06:54:22 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Steve Mading [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
FM [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
: I don't think that was the major reason either. It wouldn't
: have been hard to write a whole new language that is equivalent
: in terms of funct
Linux-Advocacy Digest #515
Linux-Advocacy Digest #515, Volume #28 Sun, 20 Aug 00 13:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux ("Joseph T. Adams")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (phil hunt)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (phil hunt)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (phil hunt)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (phil hunt)
Re: Why Lycos Selected Microsoft and Intel (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (T. Max Devlin)
From: T. Max Devlin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Sun, 20 Aug 2000 12:32:00 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
"T. Max Devlin" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[...]
The "citizens", as you put it, are buying Windows because there is no other
viable alternative. It is not Microsoft's fault no-one else has been able
to develop an OS desirable to customers.
LOL! Still in full "denial or reality" mode, eh Chris?
2. I believe I've already explained my position wrt to "the law".
Yes, and it provides a self-referential argument which is clearly
unfalsifiable. I'll ask you again; do you know what "unfalsifiable"
means?
Well, given the word doesn't exist in the dictionary it'll be hard to decide
on a definition you'll agree with, but I'd hazard a guess it means you can't
disprove my argument ?
It means your argument cannot be disproven. This makes your argument
worthless, by the way, valueless. If a theory cannot be proven wrong,
then it cannot be considered correct.
You can develop such a package if you desire, but don't "forget" some of the
relevant facts:
DRDOS:
* A non fatal warning message
* Only seen in a beta
* DRDOS was *not* 100% compatible
Blue Mountain:
* Only in a beta version
* Had to be turned on by the user
* Affected "greeting cards" from _all_ sources
Stac:
* Was a patent violation (aren't you one of those people who hates patents
?)
* Was in software Microsoft bought off another company
[...]
I'm afraid the facts don't support this contention.
You are welcome to expand on "facts".
They would have to be facts for me to expand on them, and they're not.
In fact, many of the 'facts' you are trying to present as such are
explicitly contradicted by the court transcripts and evidence, AFAWK.
The DR-DOS message was much less than "non-fatal"; it was entirely
spurious. The code which caused it was left in after the beta, it was
merely disabled. DR-DOS was more than compatible; it was competitive
and, according to some, superior. Microsoft can provide no evidence
whatsoever of any specific incompatibilities, and it was a lack of them
which prompted the inclusion of the warning message, in fact.
Your comments on Blue Mountain are simply all imaginary; you appear to
be transcribing Microsoft press releases. The Blue Mountain url which I
provided, in fact, was a filing they made to demand that the court make
public the transcripts and evidence in the trial, because Microsoft was
spreading bullshit like this. It takes a mighty dishonest person to
remain as purposefully ignorant as you are, Christopher.
Your comment on Stac was a fib as well; Microsoft *claims* the code was
in a product they bought off another company. Guess what? The court
found them guilty, and they paid the penalty, and they *didn't* sue the
source of that product to recoup their $130 dollars. Why is that?
You only want to
pretend this is true.
I see.
No, I'm sure you don't.
[...]
No. The Findings of Fact is a calm, rational, not especially well though
out, chock full of errors document of one person's opinion, who just happens
to be a judge. I have every right in the world to disagree with him and
hence, them.
Nobody has ever contended that you don't have the right to disagree.
The fact is that you don't have the *ability* to disagree; you are not
qualified, you show a predisposition for believing lies and denying
truths, and are generally incapable, it seems, of performing sufficient
acts of reasoning to be able to competently disagree in any rational
way.
If you can prove that they are, of course, then I'm sure the DoJ will
want to see your research.
It's been done many times before.
Oh has it? Maybe if you treat MS press releases as divine revelation.
Those observers with less of a pre-determined outcome than your
unfalsifiable claims of Microsoft's lack of culpability would dispute
whether its ever been done even once.
But you can't hand-wave MS's
attention-grabbing act
