Linux-Advocacy Digest #445, Volume #28 Wed, 16 Aug 00 23:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you! ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Lee Hollaar)
Re: 6 Need Developers ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ))
Popular Culture (was: It's official...) (Bob Hauck)
Re: Gnome or KDE (Tim Hanson)
Re: Notebook/Windows rebate? (Glitch)
Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells? (Leslie Mikesell)
Re: The dusty Linux shelves at CompUSA (Gary Hallock)
Re: MCSE != Engineer (Was: Microsoft MCSE ("James Stutts")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (fred)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (Tim Adams)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (fred)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (fred)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:22:35 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Christopher Smith in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"rj friedman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Tue, 8 Aug 2000 15:04:02 "Christopher Smith"
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> �...since I disgree with the law in principle and consider
>> �most of the evidence to be irrelevant, it's hardly surprising I have a
>> �different opinion to you, no ?
>>
>>
>> The United States of America - and the European Common
>> Market - and China - and Japan - and India - all say that
>> your 'different opinion' is full of shit.
>
>You mean, their legal systems. I sincerely doubt everyone in those
>countries agrees on that point.
I sincerely doubt everyone in any country agrees on any point. What's
your point? Yes, governments (and citizens) around the world are
telling MS to "ESAD". Why is it you can't seem to handle the fact that
this is because Microsoft is a criminal organization which has retarded
development and innovation in the PC world to their own private ends for
many years?
>I fear I've been too subtle in trying to say arguments along the line of
>"but they broke the law" don't carry too much weight with me.
Apparently, then, no argument carries any weight with you unless you
already agree with it. Perhaps you're not thinking hard enough, eh? If
you aren't going to accept jurisprudence as a fair arbiter, then just
what hole in the ground do you expect is going to be blissfully free of
anti-trust laws? Will you be emigrating soon? Dare we hope they have
no Usenet there so that we may be quit of your silly posturing?
>> Face reality sonny boy. It is not a case of the whole world
>> being wrong and you being right.
>
>Indeed, there are a lot of people who agree with me.
There are a lot of people who believe the government is hiding an alien
spacecraft in Roswell, New Mexico, as well. In fact, millions of people
give a great deal of credence to astrology. Is this to say that there
is any evidential support *whatsoever* that either group is right?
>> Stick your head in the sand
>> and pretend all you want - but deep in your heart you have
>> to face the fact that you are 100% full of shit.
>
>I reel at the depth of your verbal repertoire.
We are amazed at the depths of your idiocy.
--
T. Max Devlin
-- Such is my recollection of my reconstruction
of events at the time, as I recall. Consider it.
Research assistance gladly accepted. --
====== 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: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: I'm out of here. Best wishes to all of you!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 01:27:12 GMT
Due to a recent surge (ok, I got 2 projects in the last 48 hours, but
they are huge and will keep me busy till after the new year). I know
some of you are saddened by this as I suspect everyone needs a little
entertainment once in a while. Before I go, let me go on record as
saying I wish Linux well in the future. I appreciate, and sincerely
wish all of the folks doing the developing all the best in the future.
I truly believe that Linux will, someday, maybe someday soon, be the
operating system of choice for everyone. When Linux can perform all of
my DAW requirements (and even Win2k doesn't come close) I will switch
in a NY minute (10 seconds for those non-native New Yorkers).
Also I do not, nor have I ever worked for Microsoft nor have I gotten
paid to post in this or any other group. Like I said, pure
entertainment for me.
In closing:
I wish all of the fine people in COLA well, both Linvocates and
Winvocates and hope to see all of us running a better OS in the future
than we are running now.
Until then, I'll see you on Napster where my id is:
moldy_oldie and if you like jazz I have about 1000 tunes up for grabs,
at least until the feds close Napster down. Give me a yell
Sincerely and apologetically,
Claire
P.S. And the joke is............... I REALLY AM FEMALE!!!!! Always
have been, always will be. I have been happily married for 15 years
with 3 kids.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Lee Hollaar)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
Date: 17 Aug 2000 01:28:08 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
>I don't attach any more meaning to 117's "utilization" than
>"utilization". Running is certainly one form of utilization.
>Decompiling is another.
Section 117 does not purport to protect a user who disassembles object
code, converts it from assembly into source code, and makes printouts
and photocopies of the refined source code version.
_Sega v. Accolade_, 24 USPQ2d 1561, 977 F2d 1510 (Ninth Circuit, 1992)
(TMax claims to have read this case, but I guess he rejected the court's
comment because it wasn't "cogent", or fit within his unique theory of
copyright.)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Crossposted-To:
alt.computer.consultant.ads,comp.software-eng,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: 6 Need Developers
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 01:16:55 GMT
need clue even worse than need developers.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard ) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 01:24:32 GMT
In article <SlXl5.17210$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
"Drestin Black" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "R.E.Ballard ( Rex Ballard )" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:8ms4do$8e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Meanwhile, we have the WinTrolls, who seem to offer pseudonyms,
> > > > hide behind 5 layers of anonymous e-mail, and provide links
> > > > to the Microsoft websites as their primary source of
information.
> > >
> > > Examples being ?
> >
> > drestin black, "s", roger. Many of whom don't even include real
> > e-mail addresses (i've tried responding privately and the mail
> > bounced).
>
> My e-mail address is legit and always has been. Simply remove the
".nospam"
> portion.
Yes drestin. And even when I've sent you e-mail directly, you've
been very careful to give absolutely no information about your
qualifications, sources, credentials, or resources.
After all of your hotmail leaks, you probably never can. :-)
Compare this to people like me, Tracy Reed, Max Devlin, Loren Petrich,
Aaron Kulkis, and about two dozen other Linux advocates.
Meanwhile, if you look at most of the Windows advocates who post
in COLA (they're Winvocates in comna, but WinTrolls in COLA, just
as Linux Advocates are Linvocates in COLA and LinTrolls in COMNA).
Some like "s" are downright rude!
Some of the wintrolls have given enough information to indicate
a particular indentity association. Some were attempting to
manipulate stock prices and bragging about it in other groups.
> <snip>
>
> > I have a particular admiration for Drestin Black. He is very
> > articulate, and is very good at providing references that appear
> > to be verifiable - and usually disclose details at the bottom of
> > the article that effectively refute the claims he was trying to
> > make.
>
> Thanks.
> But, i think what you are refering to is
> something like where the article
> goes exactly as I said it would but in
> the copyright there is some mention
> of Microsoft or some MS related corporation.
Usually this is the case. Usually you have posted something
that showed up on the Microsoft site. I follow a few of
the links, and discover that you're 1 paragraph summary of
Microsoft's 6 paragraph rewrite of a third party document
(such as Mindcraft, Statmarket, et. al.) containing 10 pages
of summary of 40 pages of results, followed by details used
to collect the information.
It's a bit like saying 0% of all men give birth to children, so
men aren't responsible for children.
What gets wierd is when you have courts, family law, and politicians
turning this silly statistic into a legal reality that results
in automatic assignment of custody to the mother, and even where
the mother is a clear and present danger to the children, requires
the father to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, to a judge (no juries
allowed) that mother should not be given custody).
Many of your Microsoft articles have similar impact. Microsoft
releases a TCO estimate that was purely theoretical in 1997 (before
NT had even been rolled into production anywhere) and claiming that
their TCO was much lower than UNIX. - the Microsoft Myths thread.
Upon doing a little digging, it quickly surfaced that Microsoft was
quoting an article that was purely theoretical, and had assumed the
use of a Solaris midrange server, 2 NetWare servers, and compared it
to 4 NT servers for 1000 concurrent users. Since that prognostication
had been written, SAMBA was available for UNIX (eliminating the need
for NetWare on seperate servers), also IPX/SPX was available for
Linux and UNIX. In addition, real production environments showed
that although the estimate for UNIX servers was pretty accurate
(actually a bit lower, and MUCH lower if you consider Linux), the
number of NT servers was off by a factor of at least 5. When you
compare the TCO of 4 Linux servers running on 4 processor servers
(which DOES support 1000 users), and 20 NT 4 processor servers
(more required due to lack of reentrancy, memory protection, and
risk of DLL conflicts), the numbers fall in favor of UNIX -
especially Linux or FreeBSD.
> AND you instantly conclude that
> it must be a lie or that MS wrote it or
> that it's bought and paid for by MS
> without doing any further research.
Actually, the COLA newsgroup as a whole is very effective at
"reading the fine print". Furthermore, they are very good
at brining these flaws to the forground of the conversation.
I wasn't even the one who pointed out that the Mindcraft survey
was conducted under settings requested by Microsoft, which were
substantially different from their standard tests (intended to
more accurately show real-world performance). I dug far enough
to see HOW the test had been manipulated, and subsequent tests,
even under Microsoft's conditions (ideally tuned to NT 4K clusters,
NT isolated spinlocks on quad ethernet cards to quad processors...),
> THAT is the flaw in your research, not mine.
True. I've just noticed that there is a marked similarity
between your writing style and the style used by the people
who write Microsoft press releases.
You have given a non-denial denial. You challenge my reasons
for suspecting you of having a financial tie to Microsoft, but
you don't deny that you have financial ties to Microsoft.
These ties could be anything from preferred treatment within MSDN
to a contract as a Microsoft Press Agent. Do you deny, without
qualifications, that you have any financial motives for supporting
Microsoft?
> > When I do post a reference, I've usually read the entire article
> > to make sure I didn't miss anything important.
> As do I.
You do. "s" didn't.
--
Rex Ballard - I/T Architect, MIS Director
Linux Advocate, Internet Pioneer
http://www.open4success.com
Linux - 42 million satisfied users worldwide
and growing at over 5%/month! (recalibrated 8/2/00)
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
Subject: Popular Culture (was: It's official...)
Reply-To: bobh{at}haucks{dot}org
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 01:43:41 GMT
On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 14:11:05 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Bob Hauck wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 16 Aug 2000 13:15:55 -0500, Nathaniel Jay Lee
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> >But the older I get, the more knowledge I consume, the less acceptable
>> >most TV and most other 'popular culture' entertainment seems to me.
>>
>> >It must be age.
>>
>> I think so. Most popular culture is targeted to that 18-34 demographic
>> that supposedly spends a lot of money on entertainment.
>In other words, Dad was right when he said, "These are the best days of
>your life."
Oh, no, he wasn't. Or at least, he doesn't have to be. I'm going to
be 40 soon and wouldn't trade my life now for my life at 20. I'm much
happier with my life, have a lot more money, and even feel better
physically now compared with then (no more partying plus a good workout
regimen made a huge difference in that last).
Given that, I can stand not being up-to-date with "popular culture".
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.os.linux,comp.os.linux.setup,comp.os.linux.x
Subject: Re: Gnome or KDE
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 01:58:20 GMT
"Donal K. Fellows" wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> The Ghost In The Machine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [...]
> >>>> You had ones? All we had was zeros.
> >>> You were lucky.
> >>> We had to bang two rocks together to get the zeros...
> >> I had to walk 10 miles, uphill, in the snow just to get the rocks!
>
> You young whippersnappers had it easy! We had to quarry the rocks out
> of the ground at the bottom of a frozen swamp using only our noses.
> In the middle of a blizzard. And we were glad of it! You've never
> had it so good...
>
> > Both ways? :-)
>
> All three of them!
>
> Donal.
Oh yeah? When we had done all that we had to put it all into a card
reader and write about it, using vi!!
--
"The subspace _W inherits the other 8 properties of _V. And there
aren't
even any property taxes."
-- J. MacKay, Mathematics 134b
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:11:53 -0400
From: Glitch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.systems,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.misc,comp.os.linux.misc,comp.os.linux.portable
Subject: Re: Notebook/Windows rebate?
josh wrote:
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> You can certainly try, but some manufacturers are less than happy to
> give a refund. You have nothing to lose to try, if you don't mind
> countless email going back and forth talking to the dealer's reps.
>
> If I were you I'd just sell that unopened copy on ebay or something,
> much easier to get some of your money back.
>
> Good Luck
>
oh yeah, that's how you will rake in the money
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell)
Subject: Re: Windows stability: Alternate shells?
Date: 16 Aug 2000 21:17:23 -0500
In article <8n87b7$efh$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, tom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <8n2bh9$2ga6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Leslie Mikesell) wrote:
>> The way to improve windows stability is to only run one
>> program in production on a machine, never load any new
>> software at all (including updates to windows or the
>> one program you run) without testing on another machine
>> and be prepared to reboot even for a simple program
>> update.
>
>That's a pretty bleak prospect for a home desktop. I really haven't
>had that much trouble with Windows 98, though.
>
>> Try Mandrake first for a desktop machine. It's pretty far from
>> the stone age, but you'll find all the old tools under the
>> covers if you want them.
>
>Picked up Mandrake 7.1 and got it installed with no problems. I was
>hoping to be typing this on Netscape in Linux, but I haven't made it
>that far yet. For some reason, I could get to the point where Kppp is
>saying "Logging on to network", but ppp could never get running. I've
>got an email off to my ISP's tech support; hopefully, someone there is
>familiar with the Linux setup.
Look at /var/log/messages to see what is failing.
>This is more relevant to the Linuz.setup group, but perhaps I can get
>some suggestions on these issues I've found in KDE:
>
>1. Windows are constantly opening too large. I've got the taskbar set
>to Autohide and still parts of windows are offscreen. (for example,
>when KDE control center opens, the buttons for "OK", "APPLY", etc at
>the bottom of the screen are completely inaccessible unless I drag the
>window way up until the title bar is off the screen.
It has configured a virtual screen larger than the physical screen.
>2. The only resolution options that DrakConfig (or whatever the name
>is) gives as options are 256 colors at 800x600 or 640x480, and
>graphics -both .jpeg's and KDE's wallpapers- look like total crap!
This sounds like it either didn't detect your video card right
or it is seeing the wrong amount of memory. Try running
Xconfigurator by hand.
>3. Got the cd player to work (though the overall volume is much lower
>than in windows, even with the kde mixer master set high), but in
>trying to play an mp3 with the mp3 player, I get nothing but LOUD
>static.
I've never seen that before, but the cd and mp3's are handled
as different inputs to the sound card. Is this an all-pci
machine? If not, you may have to specify the irq's during
setup.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:21:55 -0400
From: Gary Hallock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The dusty Linux shelves at CompUSA
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> And exactly the reason why I was able to put a small mark on each box
> without anyone seeing me...We are talking a dot, not some x or line or
> something...
>
>
You really want us to believe that you have nothing better to do than deface Linux
products? How pathetic. Even if you really did what you say most likely one of
two things happened:
1. No one bought the items which you defaced because you defaced them. Instead
they went to another store.
2. All the boxes you defaced were bought the next day and some other idiot came
along and did the same thing to the next batch.
Many people do check for any potential problems such as crushed boxes or strange
markings. But you are probably one those idiots that will buy an opened bottle
of aspirin - one can only hope.
Gary
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MCSE != Engineer (Was: Microsoft MCSE
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 21:35:18 -0500
Tim Kelley wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>Ingemar Lundin wrote:
>>
>> Absolutely right!
>>
>> And for me a Engineer is a person who has a College-level Bachelor or
>> Masters degree in E_N_G_I_N_E_E_R_I_N_G
>>
>> Not some fantasy,toy-certificate name made up by a commercial company.
>
>Well not to defend MS, but "engineer" has a broader usage than
>that, and the term has been applied to trades that do not have
>anything to do with college.
Or anything to do with "engineering". By the professional use of the term,
there isn't such a thing as a "network engineer", for instance. Better be
careful
advertising engineering services without a license. Some state boards take
exception to that. Heck, I am an "engineer" (aerospace), but I'm not
legally
an engineer (haven't taken the PE yet).
JCS
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 02:50:48 GMT
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 09:26:47 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>fred <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 09:24:12 +0100,
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (mark) wrote:
>>
>> >I have no doubt that Microsoft pay lots of people to inhabit various
>> >advocacy newsgroups, check some of the others, eg., the 'sun' groups
>> >have regulars who explain how much better NT is than Solaris or
>> >whatever, it's a bit harder there 'cos they have to argue the hard
>> >platforms as well, but they still try - anything for money, I guess.
>>
>> Your theory is not supported by facts.
>
>What you mean to say it that Mark has not proven those facts. Facts can
>exist even if they have not yet been proven.
No, I am certain I meant exactly what I said.
>By saying "Your theory is not supported by facts", you are stating that
>Mark's theory is false. Where is your proof of that, fred? By not proving
>your theory, you are are stand on ground that is no more solid than is Mark.
I can prove it by counter example... I am not paid, therefore Mark's
theory is false.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tim Adams)
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2000 22:53:22 -0400
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "JS/PL"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > "Mike Byrns" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:I1nm5.1234$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > "tinman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > > > Actually, he went further. In the same interview, he claimed that
> > > > > > Windows does not have bugs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Post the article to backup your claim. I doubt it says anything of
> > the
> > > > > sort.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > From the URL cited earlier in the thread
> > > > (<http://www.cantrip.org/nobugs.html>):
> > > >
> > > > FOCUS:
> > > > But there are bugs an any version which people would really like to
> > > > have
> > > > fixed.
> > > > Gates:
> > > > No! There are no significant bugs in our released software that any
> > > > significant number of users want fixed.
> > > >
> > > > FOCUS:
> > > > Oh, my God. I always get mad at my computer if MS Word swallows the
> > > > page
> > > > numbers of a document which I printed a couple of times with page
> > > > numbers. If I complain to anybody they say "Well, upgrade from
> > > > version
> > > > 5.11 to 6.0".
> > > > Gates:
> > > > No! If you really think there's a bug you should report a bug. Maybe
> > > > you're not using it properly. Have you ever considered that?
> > >
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > You prove my point. You claimed Gates said that "...Windows does not
> > > have
> > > bugs.". He did not. He said that there are no significant bugs in
> > > Microsoft's released software that any significant number of users want
> > > fixed.
>
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> > The date on this article put's it at about Windows 3.11 if I'm not
> > mistaken.
> > I also don't recall having many (if any) problems with Win 3.11 except
> > for
> > extremely slow computing on my 33mhz w/ 2mb RAM machine at the time, now
> > Win95a is another story completely.
>
> ROTFLMAO. Win3.11 was so full of bugs it was a joke. Of course, not
> quite as many as 3.1 or 3.0, but it was a crappy OS.
>
> > I also noticed that the end of the article was conspicuously absent so
> > I'll
> > quote it now:
> >
> > Gates:
> > Guess how much we spend on phone calls every year.
> >
> > FOCUS:
> > Hm, a couple of million dollars?
> >
> > Gates:
> > 500 million dollars a year. We take every one of these phone calls and
> > classify them. That's the input we use to do the next version. So it's
> > like
> > the worlds biggest feedback loop. People call in - we decide what to do
> > on
> > it. Do you want to know what percentage of those phonecalls relates to
> > bugs
> > in the software? Less than one percent.
>
> OK. Let's do some math. Let's say the average phone call costs Microsoft
> $10 (probaby way too high, but I'm feeling generous today).
>
> That means they field 50 million phone calls per year. And let's say
> that "less than one percent" means half a percent. That means that there
> were 250,000 phone calls regarding bugs.
>
> How do you reconcile that with "no significant number of bugs"?
>
> I suppose you could argue that the bugs are there but the users don't
> want them fixed, but why would they spend half an hour on hold for MS
> tech support if they don't want the bugs fixed?
Another question you might also want to ask is 'Why is MS going to start
charging for tech support phone calls?'
Are they getting tired of people asking when some bug will be fixed?
Are they tire of helping people edit their registry file?
Are they tired of hearing people complain about the BSOD?
Are they tired of having people ask how to uninstall IE? Install Office?
and on and on the list could go...
--
Tim
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 02:54:15 GMT
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 20:57:59 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Christopher Browne) wrote:
>It is not obvious where the burden of proof resides in this.
Oh, I think it's pretty obvious.
>Certainly none of the "WinTrolls" have been documenting proof that
>they are _not_ on the "Microsoft payroll," but it is as fair for them
>to demand that _you_ demonstrate proof of your claims as it is for you
>to demand proof of theirs.
Ahh, here is the marvelousity of every conspiracy theory. The fact
that no documentation exists supporting the theory implicitly proves
that the theory is in fact correct!
>I would think it entirely _possible_ that some of them own a bunch of
>MSFT stock that they may have bought on their own. For someone that is
>ticked off about MSFT stock price declines, and looking for a scapegoat,
>Linux looks pretty good as a "would-be punching bag."
So Authentic Linux Advocates who own RedHat and VA Linux stock are ok?
Hmm, considering those stocks have lost something like 80% of their
value over the past year, maybe that explains why they are so pissed
off.
>I would think it quite unlikely that any of the visible names represent
>people formally (or informally) on the Microsoft payroll as "Internet
>AntiLinux Evangelists." They're generally not "professional" enough;
>to the contrary, some, if associated with Microsoft, would outright make
>Microsoft look bad.
Of course the unprofessional Authentic Linvocates don't hurt Linux,
because well I guess nobody is paying them?
This is one of the more bizarre conspiracy theories I have yet to see.
You realize that it makes you look like a baffoon to even suggest it?
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (fred)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says
Linux growth stagnating
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 02:57:26 GMT
On Sun, 13 Aug 2000 14:43:43 -0700, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>I agree that there seems some motivating factor beyond just advocacy of an
>OS they use and appriciate. I don't claim to know what the motivating
>factor is, but it does seem to exist.
Perhaps there is. But why is it that you keep frequenting the NT
advocacy group?
>Some could be:
>
>Being employed to be winvocate/wintroll.
Are you employed by RedHat? Seems likely.
>Employees of the firm perform the action on their own.
Wouldn't that automatically imply you are employed by RedHat?
>Having a position in the ownership of the manufacturer of the OS.
So you own stock in Redhat, I take it?
>Having a fear that they can not adapt to another OS if theirs fades away.
Well the general lack of knowledge of NT displayed on the part of
Authentic Linvocates would definately support this conclusion.
>Wanting revenge on the OS that caused their employment to be terminated when
>they were found to not be able to adapt to it.
Hmm, maybe you are on to something.
>Fear that their investment in becoming a MCSE won't be recovered.
I spent more money on my 17" monitor than I spent on an MCSE.
>and many other possibilities.
What, like it's kind of fun watching Linux zealots foam at the mouth?
:)
>Don't dismiss the possibility of being paid to be a winvocate or a wintroll.
>I would not be too supprised of that possibility since Microsoft has already
>done worse than that and through use of thier resources, they have been able
>to avoid paying the price for their actions.
I love this!
>Sometimes one of the best ways to avoid being implicated in an action is by
>making it appear that it would be against your best interest to take the
>action. I am not saying it is the case, but that it could be the case that
>Microsoft is paying the some of the winvocates/wintrolls to post, and the
>over-the-top styles on purpose to deflect suspicion away from Microsoft's
>complicity.
Come on, keep the foam coming...
This is great! :)
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
