Linux-Advocacy Digest #469, Volume #28 Fri, 18 Aug 00 04:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome! (Pat McCann)
Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451765 ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux (Jim Richardson)
Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come (Jim Richardson)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (Andres Soolo)
Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company (ZnU)
Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious.... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman's Politics (was: Linux is awesome!
From: Pat McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 17 Aug 2000 23:14:53 -0700
T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Said Jay Maynard in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >On Tue, 15 Aug 2000 00:44:10 -0400, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>The question was what the FSF's position is, not whether it would stand
> >>up in court. To be honest, I take that as a given, since they have no
> >>purpose in presenting an opinion which is contradicted by law. They
> >>don't make money on GNU software, after all.
> >
> >Horse exhaust.
> >
> >The FSF has a definite purpose in taking whatever positions they take: to
> >advance the Holy Cause of GPVishly Free Software. Taking positions that
> >would not necessarily be supported by a court can nevertheless advance their
> >jihad, and, like any religious fanatics, they care what a court thinks only
> >when they must, or when they can threaten people into doing things their
> >way.
>
> I didn't say they don't have an interest. Your hysterical
> characterization of the Free Software movement is obviously biased and
> relatively worthless, in the end. If they don't think they can back up
> what they say in court, they have no reason, and no need, to say it.
Please, Max, read the short post at
http://www.progressive-comp.com/Lists/?l=berlin-design&m=93118897023514&w=2
and tell us if you would make that last statement again. (It'll be a
good test of your veracity.)
Who was it that said: We're all dead, in the end.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Malloy digest, volume 2451765
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 06:59:30 GMT
Eric Bennett writes:
>> Maybe it's because he has trouble seeing. The evidence:
>>
>> "Where does he say anything about clergy, Tholen?"
>> --Joe Malloy
>>
>> "It follows from your pontificating actions and the discussion
>> of the clergy..."
>> --Eric Bennett
> Maybe it's because I have trouble seeing; without corrective lenses, I
> am legally blind. :-)
What does your situation have to do with Malloy's inability to see
where you say something about clergy, Eric?
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 18:01:58 -0400
Christopher Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>"JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> "Joseph" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>
>> > Then let me be clear - your opinion has NO weight. why? You don't like
>> the
>> > laws and you ignore the principles on which we establish facts and
>truth.
>> > Fine. Okay.
>>
>> It is this very questioning of authority which founded the United States,
>> and it is his very attitude which makes him a (more) solid American.
>I'm an Australian ;). Fortunately we also have a long history of Problems
>With Authority.
You also have major problem with clear thinking. Not only that, but you
appear to be incapable of it and seem to enjoy looking stupid.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 17:56:18 -0400
JS/PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> > The case before the courts was between the United States of
>> > America and MS. The United States of America won - live with
>> > it.
>What did the United States "win"? Last time I checked - MS is still business
>as usual. Live with that.
You are a complete idiot! The case is not finished.
Do you come here because no one anywhere else will talk to you. Your brain
damaged image of reality, makes normal people wonder. -- I do think all you
trolls should start your own newsgroup and play with other. The rest of us
can raise funds for a trophy that you morons can award to the dumbest jackass
between you. Maybe we could somehow work it in with the Darwin Award, and get
rid of some other morons here.
>> Actually, MS is lucky. The Justice department rolled up 40 SEPERATE
>> lawsuits into one suit. If they had been forced to go to trial in
>> 40 seperate suits, they probably wouldn't even exist any more,
>> and some states would have arrest warrants issued for racketeering.
>What did the Justice department have to do with allowing Microsofts motion to
>consolidate? Microsoft filed a motion...the judge granted it, because he
>basically "had to" out of the knowledge that if he denied the motion it would
>be immediately appealed and overturned due to rules of court and past
>precedence.
--
===========================================================
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
===========================================================
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: It's official, Microsoft porting applications to Linux
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2000 23:57:55 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 09:05:37 -0700,
[EMAIL PROTECTED], in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>
>Mark S. Bilk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:8ngn2q$74o$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> But the process is even more complex than it sounds, since
>> most Microsoft applications -- especially those in the
>> Office suite -- use a number of proprietary interfaces,
>> and each application requires specific workarounds. The
>> results, so far, have been disappointing.
>>
>> In other words, Microsoft's applications use secret Windows
>> system calls and facilities that it doesn't make available
>> to other software vendors.
>>
>>
>
>Sound like the MS SOP, no supprise here. That is why Wine has been alpha
>for so long.
>
>
Let me see if I have this straight. Assuming the story is try (M$ denies
it last I heard.)
1) M$ has the source for linux (obviously)
2) M$ has the source for windows (allthough they claimed to have lost the
source for W95 during the Caldera lawsuit)
3) M$ can't seem to get the porting of apps from 2) to 1) done well?
impressive...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jim Richardson)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Open source: an idea whose time has come
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 00:10:29 -0700
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Thu, 17 Aug 2000 23:33:19 GMT,
Steve Mentzer, in the persona of <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
brought forth the following words...:
>>Let's take these events one by one:
>
>
>Ok...
>
>
>>
>>(1) Open-Sourcing StarOffice
>>
>>StarOffice was previously available on a "free beer" licence. Now it is
>>being open sourced. This will make it future-proof: the software will
>>never go away, and will always get upgraded to work with new environments,
>>so long as a (small) minimal number of users are still using it.
>
>
>And do you think that the minimal numbers of users supporting it are going to
>continue to work for free? Someone has to pay the piper eventually.
Y'all keep those blinders on heah?
pay no attention to the decades of open source s/w
ignore the fact that open source has been around in one guise or
another since before there was a micros~1
>
>
>>
>>(2) Gnome foundation
>>
>>Why would major hardware companies set up the Gnome foundation? So they
>>can ship the Gnome desktop environment on computers, especially Unix
>>computers, that they sell. Note that there have been prvious efforts
>>to produce a common GUI for Unix boxes: the Common Desktop Environment.
>>But Gnome has an advantage over CDE: it is open source, which means that
>>firstly, it has got a lot of developer effort behind it, without
>>attracting large amounts of corporate money, and secondly open source
>>means that no company can shaft another member of the consortium by
>>stopping them using proprietary enhancements. Goodbye competition,
>>hello co-opetition.
>>
>>The Gnome desktop they will produce includes the Gnome base software,
>>StarOffice (now called Gnome Office), IBM's Sash development tool,
>>and Evolution, a competitor to MS Outlook.
>>
>>A beta release of this system is likely to be out later this year, with
>>a fully integrated version next year.
>
>
>Until the API's are standardized and there is a consistent inter-process method
>of communicating between apps (similar to OLE), it will never catch on. One of
>the strengths of windows is inter-app compatibility. The ability to go into
>turbotax and copy a bunch of text, and paste it into MSExcel with two keyclicks
>and some mouse movement is pretty powerful. I know there are facilities to do
>this in the current desktop environments, but **all** apps need to support a
>common framework.
>
>X, Motif, KDE, Gnome, etc etc have tried so hard to remain so modular and
>flexible that they obfusciated and complicated the long-term vision of a GUI.
>It should make things EASY TO DO. KDE is really, really cool So is Gnome. But
>users want apps to work as easy as they do under Windoze. This is an
>unescapable fact. Some native KDE apps are really great. But there is a long
>way to go.
There's allways a long way to go. No way do I want to look back, 10 years from
now, and see no improvement over the years.
But that doesn't mean that micros~1 has nothing to worry about :)
>
>>
>>(3) Microsoft re-imaging rip off
>>
>>If you are a MS corporate customer, you have Windows 2000 on a PC, and
>>you re-install the OS, MS want you to pay them again for the software.
>>The charge is $117 to $157. This is, of course, a blatant rip-off only
>>possible because of MS's dominant monopoly position.
>
>What are you talking about? If you purchase a license of Win2k, you have the
>right to install that OS on one PC. You can install it 1000 times if you want.
>As long as it is on the same PC.
What micros~1 is doing is as follows
Business buys 1000 machines from vendor, along with 1000 copies of W2K,
Business wants to modify the system on all 1000 machines in some way, so they
burn a cd with the modified setup. (or use ghost, etc) micros~1 claims that
that is not covered under the licence agreement, and that the business must
either make the modifications they want to each machine individually (man $$$
in labour ) or pay micros~1 an additional $120+ per system, for the right to
us a modified setup. Blech
>
>>
>>Be scared Microsoft, be very scared.
>>
>
>Linux developers better start understanding what the users want if they want to
>succeed on the desktop.
>
>
don't worry,
they are...
--
Jim Richardson
Anarchist, pagan and proud of it
WWW.eskimo.com/~warlock
Linux, because life's too short for a buggy OS.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 07:13:45 GMT
Christopher Smith writes [to Marty]:
> Of the three OS/2 advocates I can think of off the top of my head (you,
> Germer and Friedman) you're the only one that can keep a civil toungue.
You haven't seen some of Marty's responses to me.
------------------------------
From: Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: 18 Aug 2000 07:11:49 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy KLH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Have you ever tried M4? That has much less functionality than BASIC...it
> isn't even a programming language.
M4 doesn't have less functionality than BASIC. It's just differently
designed and hard to crasp at first if you come from the `traditional'
language background.
--
Andres Soolo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[Prime Minister Joseph] Chamberlain loves the working man -- he loves
to see him work.
-- Winston Churchill
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Big Brother and the Holding Company
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 07:31:31 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joe
Ragosta <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Joseph
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2000, Lars Tr�ger wrote:
> > >Bob B. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Joseph <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> >You guys RUINED the NT Brand by over promising and giving it a
> > >> >bad reputation as it was evaluated by standards to which it
> > >> >could not achieve. NT was a good PC OS but boy was it over
> > >> >sold and MS had to dump the NT Brand to be taken seriously --
> > >>
> > >> Yes, NT was a failure in the marketplace and they had to change
> > >> the name. Just like Apple OS 9 is a failure and they had to
> > >> introduce OS X.
> > >
> > >Apple changed the name because it is a completely different OS.
> >
> > OS X is "OS ten" It's a minor change in name relative to the BSD
> > roots of the OS.
>
> I've wondered about that. They basically did three things by choosing
> OS X:
>
> 1. Created a nomenclature which is going to be mispronounced.
> Regularly.
Steve probably liked the X. It'll be move obvious how to pronounce it
when they release Mac OS XI ;-)
> 2. Made it look like OS X is only a one step change from Mac OS 9.x.
This is good. If they'd called it 'Mac OS 15' people would have
complained about the version skipping. If they hadn't called it Mac OS,
we'd be seeing a lot more rants about how Apple was abandoning Mac users.
> 3. Made it effectively impossible to continue to improve Mac OS 9.x
> if they choose to do so.
This is also good. It shows that Apple is fully committed to OS X. Mac
OS 9 can always be renamed 'Classic' if Apple sees some reason to
continue it. But I predict that OS 9 will only survive inside OS X's
compatibility environment.
--
This universe shipped by weight, not volume. Some expansion may have
occurred during shipment.
ZnU <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: BASIC == Beginners language (Was: Just curious....
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:38:34 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>> Said Aaron R. Kulkis in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>> [...]
>> >BASIC only *LOOKS* easier.
>> >
>> >In fact, it's more difficult. Proof of this is the fact that you will
>> >not find ANY large applications written in BASIC, even though
>> >compilers for the language have existed for 20 years.
>>
>> That depends on what you mean by "easier". Easier to develop large
>> applications in? Certainly not. How many times must I point out that
>> my interest is not in application development, but simple desktop
>> automation? You don't *need* much more than BASIC for macros!
>
>But for that, Korn Shell is MUCH easier.
In the abstract, you might very well be correct, Aaron, but in practice
this is simply a matter of familiarity, not objective metrics of ease.
What is "easier" to you might not be "easier" to someone who is *not* a
professional developer.
My point isn't that it really matters much what the syntax is; it is the
functionality of the environment which is the important part. Shell
scripts simply do not have the "middleware" character which is necessary
for application macros. BASIC, as a language, doesn't either. But
BASIC is a more accessible syntax, and more broadly familiar to those
who approach the PC as a large microcomputer, rather than a small
minicomputer. It is true that this is due in no small part to
Microsoft's typical monopolistic ways. But MS didn't invent BASIC, and
Mr. Korn was not specifically designing a syntax intended for those not
yet familiar with 'real' programming.
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:38:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>>>>>> "T" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Said Chris Wenham in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >>>>>>> "T" == T Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > [...]
> >> (I've noticed that I "seem" to be saying a lot that I, in fact,
> >> didn't.)
>
> > Funny how that works, isn't it? Language is a wonderous thing. The way
> > you say something, what you choose to say, the things you avoid saying;
> > all of these are just as important as your words. Of course, a typical
> > troll tactic is to insist that all else must be ignored, particularly
> > when it shows that your words are empty, endless attempts at
> > misdirection and insinuation. I call it "intentional ignorance", and it
> > is a game I refuse to play.
>
> > Oh, am I being too harsh?
>
> I understand the rage in your words, but not the words.
I'm sure you'll recognize my pat answer, why do you even bother?
Think harder.
> >> I think most Kitchentop PC buyers have [...]
>
> > First you say you're thinking, but then the rest is just you imagining
> > that you can second-guess the market. I've got no time and less
> > patience for it, thanks.
>
> It looks like the part you snipped was "...prioritized what they're
> willing to spend time learning. Most of them are looking for a vendor
> they can trust so that they can just buy their PC, use it out of the
> box and spend the rest of their time dealing with higher
> priorities."
Yes, and I snipped it because it was empty rhetoric, irrelevant to my
comment, and not generally cogent.
> That's an opinion I infered from observation. I told you what was the
> observation. I prefaced the opinions with "I think". And in regards
> to the inferences I made, I would also be interested in evidence to
> the alternatives.
Be that as it may, it was thrown into the middle of a discussion which
had a more realistic and pragmatic context at the time, IMHO.
You were entirely correct in your comments, of course. You were
entirely incorrect in applying them to Windows. Windows has market
dominance because of a carefully implemented, maintained, and extended
campaign of illegal monopolization by Microsoft.
The only way a user will be able to prioritize as *they* desire, and
have even a remote chance of ignoring what they will and dealing with
their personal higher priorities, is when there is healthy competition
in a free market. Or lots of different Linux distros on pre-loaded PCs,
which is the same thing.
[...]
> > Chris; the reason the desktop market 'belongs' to Windows and Linux
> > can't get into it is because Microsoft criminally prevented OEMs from
> > engaging in a free market.
>
> *sigh*
My reaction is somewhat less apathetic. I don't like being ripped off.
> > Proven in a court of law, and all that, and I
> > don't feel like going over it all on Usenet yet again.
>
> EXCELLENT! I THOUGHT I WAS IN AN ARGUMENT WHICH PUT ALL OF THAT
> BEHIND IT!
>
> Lets have a party to celebrate Max's realization: That the monopoly
> and how it was enforced is a concept that's _undersood_!
OK, well, now that that's out of the way, you were saying...?
> How about we get back to talking about the original subject: How we
> can sell more Linux boxes to the Kitchentop market? Huh? How about
> that, eh? Here's my suggestion: I think that the presense of
> technical support is a /major/ selling factor. AND GUESS WHAT? That's
> what I've been talking about for the past six or seven posts! WHAT AN
> OBSERVATION!
Well, duh. I don't understand why you're saying that. What do you
think Redhat is selling? You can get the software for free (though a
download is a pain, and lots of people will pay for a cd, but for what
they're charging...) the value of buying a distro is in the tech
support. Real tech support. Which means it might be reading the manual
if the customer is a newbie, and it might be helping a geek modify the
friggen' code. (BTW, in reference to an earlier thread on this group,
this is, in fact, a positive use of the formerly pejorative word 'geek',
which is now somewhat common, but its kind of like 'nigger' in that
regard.) I am not familiar with the details (I wouldn't expect to use
either, though I might need some "is this a bug?" support; I pay the
fifty bucks just to encourage them to make an even better one so that I
can be assured that when I want to spend another fifty bucks on newer
software in a couple of years, it will be there for me) but first party,
second party, third party, all sorts of support is available for Linux
and Linux apps, AFAIK.
> > All the rest of this is just desperate trolling on your part.
>
> No, let me tell you what's desparate: Someone who invents ulterior
> motives and attributes them to his opponent because he's trying to
> change the subject.
From...?
> How about you stop trying to find reasons to call me a troll and
> start finding reasons to support your argument? Here's a rehash of
> mine, as to provide context when you remind us of yours:
OK, I'm sorry. I'll try to kill the passive-aggressive voice I hear in
my head when I read your words. Thank you for kicking me in the ass, if
I'm the problem here.
> In order to sell to the Kitchentop market, technical support must be
> included as part of the package. I say this because I've directly
> observed first-time home computer buyers and what their behavior
> suggests are their primary concerns.
AFAIK, tech support is part of the package for just about any
shrink-wrapped distro.
> NOTE TO SPECTATORS: This point has nothing to do with Microsoft, its
> monopoly, the Trilateral Comission, the Pope or the Queen Mum. It's
> point is addressing the prospects of Free Software in a post-monopoly
> era that may possibly follow a court ordered remedy.
>
> ADDENDUM TO NOTE: I have never changed the subject to deviate from
> this. Not by pretending that the monopoly is anything more than
> background to the issue. Not even by calling Max a troll, an idiot, a
> silly person or a Republican. The author would APPRECIATE similar
> restraint from Mr. Devlin, rather than lobbing around the word
> "troll" as if character assasination was now the only thing that
> could save his face.
Yea, yea, we all know I'm fixated. But you'll have to forgive me if
your only point was "tech support is a good thing". I figured there was
more to your position than that. Its certain that I misread you,
apparently. But the subject, if not the topic, is Microsoft.
> > It has nothing
> > to do with education, tech support, or technology.
>
> It HAD nothing to do with education, tech support or technology. But
> now it /can/. If the contracts which forced alternative operating
> systems off most PCs have been nulled by the courts, then Free
> Software must still have some intrinsic benefits beyond price and the
> incarnated expression of free speech.
Well, there is the subject of the speech, yes. But free speech
*doesn't* support the kind of "I don't want to know about chainsaws"
attitude which you've indicated. I think I see what happened to the
discussion, then:
Jedi said "tech support is bogus, all they're capable of is reading the
user manual"
Somebody said "that's OK, it still sells shrink-wrapped boxes"
I said "that by itself is 'not OK', at all"
You said "tech support is going to have to read user manuals, if that's
what it takes in the home PC market"
I said "[something unrelated to your point, because I was still arguing
that tech support as Jedi or 'somebody' defined (and I, of course, then
redefined to clarify what it meant) was still 'not OK']"
You said (in this message) "But I was saying that tech support needs to
be a value-add for Linux packages"
And I said (finally, in this message) "But I thought it already was."
And you say...?
--
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: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2000 03:38:48 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> In other words, your company won't make a product if it can make a
>> profit on it; it has to be able to profiteer (restrict access to it in
>> order to charge exorbitant profits) or it isn't worth the investment.
>> This is the standard mode of business today, and rather than being
>> responsible for the wonders of the modern world, it merely takes
>> advantage of it, and purports to take responsibility for it.
>
>Marx would be proud of the above thesis. Here's an idea...move to Cuba, they
>look like they are thriving on the philosophy above....join the big party in
>the streets down south Max.
Bullshit. :-)
How many small businesses have you ever been a part of, 'JS/PL'? And
how many different large companies currently pay for your personal
services? I've got more free market capitalism in my left butt-cheek
than you do in your whole family, I'll bet.
(Of course, the number of large companies that may desire to continue to
pay for my services might be lessened by the very remarks you've quoted.
Do I look like I'm worried?) :-]
--
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! ======
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
