Linux-Advocacy Digest #427, Volume #26 Tue, 9 May 00 20:13:07 EDT
Contents:
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! (david parsons)
Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition! (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Let's POLL!
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Karel Jansens)
Re: Microsoft invents XML! (Marty)
Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!! (Sean Akers)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (Alan Boyd)
Re: Linux will remain immune ("C")
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software ("Christopher Smith")
Re: Linux will remain immune (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Linux will remain immune ("Rich C")
Re: Microsoft invents XML! ("David T. Johnson")
Re: Linux will remain immune (Nic)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (JEDIDIAH)
Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software (WickedDyno)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (david parsons)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: 9 May 2000 14:19:49 -0700
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>If MS created anything on the Linux platform, it would almost be
>garaunteed to be of the same buggy nature as most of thier current
>Windows software.
*snort*
You're too young to have seen Microsoft being competitive.
They're a hell of a lot bigger, smarter, and scarier than
anyone in the Unix world, and when they have to compete
they can crank out some pretty fine code.
____
david parsons \bi/ but you're safe -- MS won't compete in the stone ax
\/ and bearskin marketplace.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Subject: Re: Microsoft Office Linux Edition!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 22:43:31 GMT
On 9 May 2000 14:19:49 -0700, david parsons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Nathaniel Jay Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>If MS created anything on the Linux platform, it would almost be
>>garaunteed to be of the same buggy nature as most of thier current
>>Windows software.
>
> *snort*
>
> You're too young to have seen Microsoft being competitive.
> They're a hell of a lot bigger, smarter, and scarier than
> anyone in the Unix world, and when they have to compete
> they can crank out some pretty fine code.
Yeah...
How long did it take them to surpass NS after undermining
Netscape's availablity to pay for development?
How long did it take them to achieve parity with a competitor
they couldn't bully out of existence? (intuit)
How long have they been trying to out-Unix Unix?
[deletia]
Color me skeptical.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Let's POLL!
Date: 09 May 2000 22:42:40 GMT
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Just because some 12 year old kid launches a VB script virus,
> and YOUR company ingests this virus, should the employee's
> who have double clicked our the attachment using YOUR companies
> OUTLOOK EXPRESS be disciplined?
>
Basically the best way to train the unwashed masses is to threaten them, so
I would tell them that if they open any document that contains a virus and
causes damage to the IT systems they are out of the door for groose
incompetency. Usually this does the thrick ... All the poeple I trained have
become verry carefull and allways check with the sender if they know them
before opening attachments and messages from unknown sources get deleted.
The only thing this requires is fireing one or two employees to make shure
they know you are serious about your threat.
Michael
--
Michael C. Vergallen A.k.A. Mad Mike,
Sportstraat 28 http://www.double-barrel.be/mvergall/
B 9000 Gent ftp://ftp.double-barrel.be/pub/linux/
Belgium tel : 32-9-2227764 Fax : 32-9-2224976
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 22:48:12 GMT
On 9 May 2000 14:26:31 -0500, Leslie Mikesell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim Stuyck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>A trainee, having had some instruction on the "consent decree"
>>just a few days earlier, asked Buck if he, when he became a
>>salesman after training, should "hold back" a little, letting the
>>competition win every once in a while.
>>
>>Buck's reply: "Don't you worry about that. IBM's share of the
>>business is ALL of the business."
>>
>>Absolutely true story.
>
>This is a good point, and it is only fair to realize that things
>would not be any better for consumers if this had happened,
>or if AT&T had been allowed to use their monopoly power
>to push a single-vendor unix system. On the other hand there
>was a reason those monpolies were held back and it wasn't
>just to create another one.
Although, it's damn ironic to consider this history when seeing
some MS shill whine about the application of anti-trust law to
Microsoft. Without the Sherman Act, both of todays frontrunner
OSes would likely never have had the opportunity to come about.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 9 May 2000 23:58:19 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
>
> But everybody and his brother had a beta test copy at the time and
> there was a large public outcry before it was removed. There is
> no reason to think it would have been removed if it were not for
> the publicity the beta version caused.
>
Again, my copy of Windows 3.1 was _not_ a beta. It was bought retail
(I can even show you the bloody invoice!), there is no mention of beta
status anywhere in the documentation or in the information windows.
This copy of Windows 3.1 refused to run on DR-DOS 6; there was not
some well-meant message about possible incompatibilities with a
non-tested product, IT WOULD NOT RUN!
The patch-disk replaced a whole bunch of DR-DOS files with "flagged"
ones (so I was told) that the Windows copy would no longer recognize
as "hostile".
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
VapourSig 1.1 has been postponed indefinitely
========================================================
------------------------------
From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: 9 May 2000 23:58:25 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Raena Armitage) wrote:
> --
> Si hoc adfixum legere potes, operis boni in rebus Latinis alacribus et
> fructuosis potiri potes!
>
It still won't pay the bills though...
Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net
========================================================
VapourSig 1.1 has been postponed indefinitely
========================================================
------------------------------
From: Marty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 23:05:08 GMT
rj friedman wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 May 2000 19:40:46 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy
> ball) wrote:
>
> �>Hopefully you're rolling your eyes at David Ignatius, the writer of that
> �>piece ?
>
> �ignatius is a shill for M$, and the Washington Post *repeatedly* runs
> �pro-Microsoft articles... i've emailed the ombudsman and received *no*
> �responses...
>
> One thing to keep in mind is that MS has a whole series of
> paid writers who write "news" articles and get them
> published as "freelancers" - hiding the fact that the
> "reporter" is literally bought and paid for by MS.
Any particular examples or evidence, or are you just talking out of your ass
as usual?
------------------------------
From: Sean Akers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux IS THE ULTIMATE VIRUS(IOW LINUX SUXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX)!!!!!!!!
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 00:16:35 +0100
On 9 May 2000 16:17:16 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
wrote:
>Linux has to be the world's fastest-growing OS, so vendors can't ignore
>it much longer. Some, like Digiboard were paying attention all
>along - others like ATI have come around recently.
>
> Les Mikesell
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Let's hope ATI do a better job of writing Linux drivers than they do
writing Windows drivers !!!
Sean.
------------------------------
From: Alan Boyd <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 18:20:04 -0500
John Poltorak wrote:
>
> In <8f99lh$p6n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >
> >
> >> >"The message first appeared in build 61, a late-stage beta, and seemed to
> >> >disappear in the final retail release of Windows 3.1. "
> >>
> >> If I accept that this code was removed from the final release,
> >> can you give me any justification for it being there in the first
> >> place?
> >
> >Yes. Microsoft were beta testing Windows.
>
> Maybe you can remind me about the text of the message....
For those who don't know what it was....
http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9309/9309d/19930274.htm
Non-fatal error detected: error #4D53
(Please contact Windows 3.1 beta support.)
Press ENTER to continue.
Do a net search for "AARD code" for more info.
Also,
http://www.theregister.co.uk/991105-000023.html
Brad Silverberg emailed Allchin on 27 September 1991:
"drdos has problems running windows today, and I assume will
have more problems in the future."
Allchin replied: "You should make sure it has problems in
the future. :-)",
>
> >> Was this some sort of Microsoft *innovation* ?
> >
> >No, it was common sense. Try to remove variables over which you have no
> >control.
--
"I don't believe in anti-anything. A man has to have a
program; you have to be *for* something, otherwise you
will never get anywhere." -- Harry S Truman
------------------------------
Reply-To: "C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 09:27:07 +1000
So everyone invlolved with sendmail over the years must stupid then??
Sendmail has had its fair share of remote root exploits, which should be
impossible seeing its open source.
"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> from
> http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/09/linux.immune.idg/index.html
>
> "But here's the point: Linux users are likely to remain immune to such
> things as the ILOVEYOU virus, even when there are feature-rich (email)
> clients such as Magellan. They are likely to remain immune due to the fact
> that Linux is open source, and because Linux promotes competition."
>
> "Linux and much of its application software is written and distributed by
> people who understand the value of open source. Put bluntly, most
> developers in the Linux community would not be *stupid* enough to create a
> program as insecure and dangerous as Outlook. And if anyone were foolish
> enough to do so in the open source community, such a design would not be
> likely to survive the peer review it would receive."
>
------------------------------
From: "Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 09:44:23 +1000
"Raena Armitage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> (multi-reply)
>
> In response to John Poltorak, Dr. Smithy said:
> > > Did Microsoft invent (insert various nouns here)?
> >
> > No, where do they claim to ?
> >
> > > The answer is no to all of the above, yet a great many computer users
> > > think at least one of these is true.
> >
> > So what ? Most people think Edison invented the lightbulb, as well.
>
> Well, it's easy for enlightened folks (such as Smithy, naturally) to
forget
> that the average Joe Holden doesn't know any better.
I'm not forgetting that at all. In fact that's basically exactly what I'm
saying.
> Actual quote from my dad circa 1993, on first using the Mac:
> "Where's the file manager?"
> There *is* no file manager, Dad. You do it all from here.
> "But *all* computers need the File Manager..."
>
> QED. I bet we could all find someone around who will answer yes to most
of
> those questions John posed. Try a quiz.
> "Q: What do you use to a: write a letter, b: make spreadsheets, and c:
> make a database?"
> "A: a: Word, b: Excel, c: Access."
Technically those answers are perfectly correct. I know what you mean,
however.
> The Average Schmo Doesn't Know Any Better.
Which was my point. It's hardly fair to blame Microsoft for The Common
Joe's ignorance.
Heck, a lot of people probably think Henry Ford invented the Car.
> > His assertion is about as true as it is for any other company I can
think of
> > making similar "innovation" claims.
> >
> > Eg, Apple and their "innovative" slot loading CDROM/DVD on the iMacs.
>
> Excuses, excuses. Since *when* has that been a major issue?
Since people run around chanting "show us Microsoft's innovation" but
neglect to also chant "show us $SOMEOTHERCOMPANY's innovation".
Microsoft behave identically to almost every other company. Bitching about
Microsoft without also bitching about everyone else is hypocrisy, plain and
simple.
> Get a meatier
> argument - and submit it by the end of semester, kiddo, or you'll be
> excluded from exams.
Oh, the terror. I'm shaking in my boots.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 23:39:48 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 09:27:07 +1000, C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>So everyone invlolved with sendmail over the years must stupid then??
>Sendmail has had its fair share of remote root exploits, which should be
>impossible seeing its open source.
So then, try to exploit some of them and get back to us.
>
>
>"Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
[hooray for our side]
What's that? They've all been plugged up?
THAT's the value of peer reviewed source code.
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 23:48:30 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 09:44:23 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Raena Armitage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> (multi-reply)
>>
>> In response to John Poltorak, Dr. Smithy said:
>> > > Did Microsoft invent (insert various nouns here)?
[deletia]
>I'm not forgetting that at all. In fact that's basically exactly what I'm
>saying.
>
>> Actual quote from my dad circa 1993, on first using the Mac:
>> "Where's the file manager?"
>> There *is* no file manager, Dad. You do it all from here.
Sure there is. It's not just 'fileman.exe'.
>> "But *all* computers need the File Manager..."
>>
>> QED. I bet we could all find someone around who will answer yes to most
>of
>> those questions John posed. Try a quiz.
>> "Q: What do you use to a: write a letter, b: make spreadsheets, and c:
>> make a database?"
>> "A: a: Word, b: Excel, c: Access."
>
>Technically those answers are perfectly correct. I know what you mean,
>however.
>
>> The Average Schmo Doesn't Know Any Better.
>
>Which was my point. It's hardly fair to blame Microsoft for The Common
>Joe's ignorance.
Sure it is. They encourage it. They also seek to work to make
word processing == msword for all practical purposes due to
obscuring file formats and sabotaging interoperability.
>
>Heck, a lot of people probably think Henry Ford invented the Car.
>
>> > His assertion is about as true as it is for any other company I can
>think of
>> > making similar "innovation" claims.
>> >
>> > Eg, Apple and their "innovative" slot loading CDROM/DVD on the iMacs.
>>
>> Excuses, excuses. Since *when* has that been a major issue?
>
>Since people run around chanting "show us Microsoft's innovation" but
>neglect to also chant "show us $SOMEOTHERCOMPANY's innovation".
Microsoft tends to get called out for this because they whine
the most about their 'innovations'.
>
>Microsoft behave identically to almost every other company. Bitching about
>Microsoft without also bitching about everyone else is hypocrisy, plain and
>simple.
So? Most people do infact bitch about everyone else when such
subjects come out. Your claim of hypocrisy is quite moot.
[deletia]
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: "Rich C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: Tue, 9 May 2000 19:55:37 -0400
"C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:e11S4.7829$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> So everyone invlolved with sendmail over the years must stupid then??
> Sendmail has had its fair share of remote root exploits, which should be
> impossible seeing its open source.
>
Nothing is impossible. When a problem occurs though, it is addressed and
FIXED by the Open Source community.
Sendmail's problems were all fixed years ago. What's more, the rather
complicated sendmail.cf file was upgraded with a macro version which made
"configuration mistakes" by inexperienced users less likely.
With MS and outlook [express,] it's just one crisis after
another.......melissa, happy99, iloveyou.......and nothing is done to
improve the security of these products.
-- Rich C.
"Great minds discuss ideas.
Average minds discuss events.
Small minds discuss people."
>
> "Perry Pip" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > from
> > http://www.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/05/09/linux.immune.idg/index.html
> >
> > "But here's the point: Linux users are likely to remain immune to such
> > things as the ILOVEYOU virus, even when there are feature-rich (email)
> > clients such as Magellan. They are likely to remain immune due to the
fact
> > that Linux is open source, and because Linux promotes competition."
> >
> > "Linux and much of its application software is written and distributed
by
> > people who understand the value of open source. Put bluntly, most
> > developers in the Linux community would not be *stupid* enough to create
a
> > program as insecure and dangerous as Outlook. And if anyone were foolish
> > enough to do so in the open source community, such a design would not be
> > likely to survive the peer review it would receive."
> >
>
>
------------------------------
From: "David T. Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft invents XML!
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 16:53:29 -0400
Marty wrote:
>
> rj friedman wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 8 May 2000 19:40:46 [EMAIL PROTECTED] (billy
> > ball) wrote:
> >
> > �>Hopefully you're rolling your eyes at David Ignatius, the writer of that
> > �>piece ?
> >
> > �ignatius is a shill for M$, and the Washington Post *repeatedly* runs
> > �pro-Microsoft articles... i've emailed the ombudsman and received *no*
> > �responses...
> >
> > One thing to keep in mind is that MS has a whole series of
> > paid writers who write "news" articles and get them
> > published as "freelancers" - hiding the fact that the
> > "reporter" is literally bought and paid for by MS.
>
> Any particular examples or evidence, or are you just talking out of your ass
> as usual?
Here's a link to one report of Microsoft's phony "astroturf" campaign in
4/98.
http://www.utoledo.edu/~pfritz/_news/NEWS-442.HTM
"The company has been on the defensive since
Friday, when reports surfaced of a proposal
by Microsoft's PR firm in Washington to
generate favorable news articles, op-ed
pieces and letters to the editor in many of the
states where Microsoft is under investigation
by state attorneys general for possible antitrust
violations. Details of the proposal from
Edelman Public Relations were first reported
in the Los Angeles Times."
------------------------------
From: Nic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux will remain immune
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 11:54:48 +1200
C wrote:
>
> So everyone invlolved with sendmail over the years must stupid then??
> Sendmail has had its fair share of remote root exploits, which should be
> impossible seeing its open source.
A bug that lets someone in is different in my mind to a design decision
that lets someone in. The former are unintentional, and generally get
fixed.
The only intentional thing I can think of in sendmail is the ancient
"debug" (or was it "wizard"?) sendmail command. Long long long dead and
gone.
Regards,
Nic.
--
J. Random Coder < sky at wibble dot net >
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 20:01:16 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jim
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> In article <39179067$2$obot$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bob Germer
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >On 05/08/2000 at 12:25 PM,
>> > WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> >
>> >
>> >> (Two bucks says Bob either ignores the above post or responds with
>> >> more
>> >> or less what I just said.)
>> >
>> >I will ignore anything eminating from the sewer called Cornell. It is
>> >the
>> >National Enquirer of higher education.
>> >
>> >Being a Cornell graduate just got a prospective member of our
>> >country club blackballed. That's what we think of you slime.
>
>>
>> Bob, your feeble attempts to distract everyone from your bigoted,
>> intolerant self by insulting my alma mater has failed miserably. Your
>> blookage merely reveals you as the shallow troll that you are.
>>
>> Note that his post doesn't even make sense, because he obviously ISN'T
>> ignoring everything "eminating" from cornell -- which would preclude his
>> responding to me at all.
>>
>> Fresh troll, get it while it's hot!
>
>Yeah, kinda sad that _anyone_ is so hate-challenged that he'd attack
>everyone at a major school (and all of its alums into the bargain)!
>Makes me wonder what a school needs to do to pass muster. Geeze, _my_
>alma mater may be a sewer! Well, one can always hope it measures up,
>anyway. ;-) Anybody know what Cornell's infraction was to get on his
>list? Is an infraction even needed? Oops, mine probably qualifies, as of
>now.
I think we made the fatal error of using Windows PCs and Macintoshes.
OS/2 PCs are the only things that could save us, right Bob? Not to
mention kicking out all those E-Ville homosexuals and L*b*r*l D*m*cr*ts.
--
| Andrew Glasgow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (JEDIDIAH)
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Wed, 10 May 2000 00:02:46 GMT
On Wed, 10 May 2000 09:44:23 +1000, Christopher Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>"Raena Armitage" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> (multi-reply)
>>
>> In response to John Poltorak, Dr. Smithy said:
>> > > Did Microsoft invent (insert various nouns here)?
[deletia]
>> > making similar "innovation" claims.
>> >
>> > Eg, Apple and their "innovative" slot loading CDROM/DVD on the iMacs.
So? Who else besides the generic cloners have added slot loading
DVD players to their product lines? It's certainly a handy feature
for those of us capable of installing our own pioneer dvd drives.
...although, they just had to BOTCH it by using a slow drive.
Although, I'd rather put that RICOH hybrid cdrw/dvd in a machine
like an iMac that doesn't have any other form of external storage.
>>
>> Excuses, excuses. Since *when* has that been a major issue?
>
>Since people run around chanting "show us Microsoft's innovation" but
>neglect to also chant "show us $SOMEOTHERCOMPANY's innovation".
[deletia]
So? When/Where was Apple touting the greatness of this slot
loading dvd player innovation?
--
In what language does 'open' mean 'execute the evil contents of' |||
a document? --Les Mikesell / | \
Need sane PPP docs? Try penguin.lvcm.com.
------------------------------
From: WickedDyno <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why only Microsoft should be allowed to create software
Date: Tue, 09 May 2000 20:03:46 -0400
In article <UgYR4.177$v3.2852@uchinews>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(david raoul derbes) wrote:
<s>
>For a decade or more we've heard about this Chinese wall between
>apps and OS development, right?
Eh? I haven't encountered this metaphor before. Vas ist los?
--
| Andrew Glasgow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> |
| SCSI is *NOT* magic. There are *fundamental technical |
| reasons* why it is necessary to sacrifice a young goat |
| to your SCSI chain now and then. -- John Woods |
------------------------------
** 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 (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
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
******************************
