Linux-Advocacy Digest #739, Volume #28 Tue, 29 Aug 00 18:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard says Linux
growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform ("Quantum Leaper")
Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating (T. Max Devlin)
Re: "pure" Linux?? (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Simon Cooke")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Robert Moir")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Robert Moir")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Robert Moir")
Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It? (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:04:42 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>> [...]
>> >The company could make money from other products. The product could
>> >generate money for other companies. There is no one-one link
>> >between them.
>>
>> Well, you give two possibilities, and then presume they lead to a
>> conclusion.
>
>No, I see they don't lead to your conclusion. In fact, I refused
>to reach such a conclusion that would make Qt and TT exchangeable.
>That is why I refused to exchange them, fool.
Note the choice of words, Roberto. You "presume they lead to a
conclusion". It is certainly not my conclusion, necessarily, since
you're the one who made it. I wouldn't make such an obvious logical
mistake as to presume that two "coulds" make an "is".
>> I'm well aware that TT "could" make money from other
>> products and KDE "could" generate money for other companies. But I
>> already knew these were possibilities; I'm asking for information,
>> which you seem reticent to provide.
>
>Ask a straight question, and you will get answers.
No, I'll get a minimalist and terse answer, because you appear to be
unable to comprehend the concept of any other sort. The implicit
question throughout the entire discussion has been "what are the ethical
considerations involved in the KDE/GNOME issue?" Your response seems to
generally be 'there are none', which is somewhat less than useful, and
not necessarily honest, given the level of debate which you are
obviously not ignorant of.
[...]
>> I believe its more likely that you simply
>> don't understand the question, or perhaps that you do but don't have
>> an answer and don't wish to reveal this lack. I'd have to be a
>> conspiracy theorist to think you were intentionally not confronting
>> the real questions.
>
>There is another possibility: your question is so stupid I prefer
>to mock you.
I'd say that's the second choice, obviously: you don't have an answer,
and don't wish to reveal this lack. There are no stupid questions, only
sarcastic answers.
>> >And since correcting your stupid ways is so easy, why don't you do it
>> >instead of whining?
>>
>> Apparently, it isn't as easy as you'd like it to be.
>
>Sure it's easy!. You see, when you mean "the company", say TT.
>When you mean "the software", say Qt. Easy!
But I already knew that. I'm also able to grasp the idea that sometimes
when I say "TT", I mean the software, and sometimes when I say "QT", I
mean the company. Since I've seen you do it before yourself (consider
'Linux', 'Redhat', and 'KDE' <though recently I've noted you taking some
pains to say 'the KDE organization' and such, implicit evidence you
understand the issue>), it seems quite clear that your comment is just
more intellectual dishonesty on your part. Probably accidental, I'm
sure, but I do wish you'd try a little harder to keep up your end of the
argument without so routinely devolving into these little distracting
outbursts.
You may find it worth considering that a large part of the firm reaction
to the post-modernist philosophy we've discussed previously among
intellectuals and philosophers is because it seems to routinely devolve
into pointless pedantic attempts to distract the real argument. So it
wouldn't surprise me if you simply didn't realize both why you so often
dramatize and posture and why you seem unsuccessful in making your point
clear to others is that you simply don't have any real arguments to
support you, but only the form of arguments.
>> You've provided no information at all, and very little conjecture
>
>I have provided plenty of information in this thread, [...]
In drips and drabs which made it painful to continue. Others were far
more generous; had I needed to rely on your input, I'd still be ranting
against KDE as a subterfuge intended to remove the freedoms of Linux
users in an attempt to bottle them up so they can provide illicit profit
to commercial interests who seek to take advantage of the community's
efforts for private gain.
As it stands, I'm of the opinion that this may have been (but wasn't
necessarily) the case; as Adam Smith predicted, however, competition
prevented it from disabling the free market. In other cases,
unfortunately, market manipulation has proven possible, so its hardly
untoward of me to expect public debate about the issue to remain civil
and open. I started this debate with a market perception which does,
indeed, exist, and with some validity, and feel no remorse for stating
and provisionally supporting that case then I will attempt to cloak the
fact that I no longer believe it to be a valid concern. Still, given
the choice, I will avoid KDE software.
--
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.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Anonymous Wintrolls and Authentic Linvocates - Re: R.E. Ballard
says Linux growth stagnating
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:04:53 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
[...]
>> Such problem is that you are frequent victim of elitist authoritarian
>> bullshit thinking. In your disdain for "non-contributing" members of
>> the community (being part of the community is a contribution in its own
>> right, whether you are a coder or not),
>
>Depends on your definition of contributing.
Only if your goal is to restrict the contributions. Being part of a
community is a contribution, all by itself, as I've stated. The truth
of that statement depends on the definition of 'community', not
'contributing'.
>> in your post-modernist rhetoric
>> on philosophical topics, on your painfully clear reticence to be open
>> and up-front about the potential issues in the relationship between KDE
>> and Troll Tech and its putative major customers....
>
>I replied to every question you asked. I see no reticence.
You reply tersely and with the maximum amount of ambiguous
interpretation of the question as you can manage. The reticence is
obvious to me, whether you see it or not.
[...]
>What a load of crap. If someone wants to develop something I believe
>is counter-productive, it's his own problem, not mine or anyone
>else's. I also reserve my own right to develop whatever I want,
>regardless of the opinion of anyone else, so I must grant that
>right to everyone.
It isn't a question of rights, Roberto. I'm afraid its a question of
courtesy and reason. I say this is unfortunate, because you've shown
little interest in either courtesy or reason, so I'm expecting that you
will just try to "blow off" such concerns. Which is, in the end, the
reason your integrity was impugned and why it was valid, when 'mjcr'
noted that you were showing contempt for the community itself by
hand-waving the concerns of another member of that community. You don't
even know what the concept of "the Linux community" means, and probably
think its the same sort of lovey-dovey crap that the rabid anti-OSS
people use to ridicule the concept of OSS.
>> I congratulate Nathaniel Lee for having the gumption
>> to engage in this effort, and 'mjcr' for supporting him, while again
>> pointing out that while their points might have been addressed to some
>> degree, your buttheaded responses generally prevented any productive
>> discussion from occurring.
>
>Pot, kettle, black.
Hardly.
--
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: "Quantum Leaper" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy
Subject: Re: Inferior Engineering of the Win32 Platform - was Re: Linsux as a desktop
platform
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 21:04:11 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 12:03:12 GMT, Quantum Leaper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> >"2:1" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:8oe1jv$ddc$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >> >Also, Win9x's design goal was to run on the same
> >> hardware
> >> > that typical Windows 3.x machines were running on in 1995 and be as
> >> fast, or
> >> > faster than Windows 3.x. All of which it achieved.
> >>
> >> What?! I have never heard anyone claim thet win 95 is as fast as
win3.x.
> >> This also goes directly against my personal experience and the
> >> experience of many people that I know. Try running them on an old 486.
> >> 95 is a little sluggish. On a fast pentium, win311 flies.
> >>
> >Win95 is about the same speed Win3.11 if you have more than 16 megs. If
you
> >have less than 16 megs, Win95 is slower than Win3.11. How many Win3.11
> >computers had more than 16 megs? 16 megs cost over $250, in August 1995.
>
> Actually, it was more like $700 for 16M.
>
I didn't realize it was that much, I bought 16Megs in 1996 and it was $240.
Also thats why I said it was OVER $250.
>
> Win 3.1 and Win 9x are BOTH painful to use in 4M or 8M. Win95 certainly
> did NOT run faster than it's predecessor on the hardware in common use
> when it was released.
If you gave Win95 more than 16 megs it was fine, but with less, it was
slow. When I went to 24 megs, Win95 almost doubled in speed. Win3.11
wasn't bad with 8 megs and a Pentium class cpu, I had a P75 with 8 megs, in
June 1995.
BTW I agree with second part but not the first part. Win3.11 wasn't painful
to use with 8megs.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:05:13 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" escribi�:
>>
>> Said Stephen S. Edwards II in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >Of course he's going to be biased... he's a part
>> >of the KDE project. It's unfair to expect him
>> >to be anything otherwise.
>>
>> I'm sorry, this is such a horrible mangled bunch of post-modern
>> bullshit, I couldn't resist responding. No, it is not unfair to expect
>> anyone to be unbiased, regardless of their affiliations.
>
>No, it is stupid and unrealistic, but I don't believe it's unfair.
You contradict yourself, Roberto. I won't argue the point, as it
revolves on abstract consideration of concepts, and I know you're not
really up to the challenge, but I thought it might be worth pointing
out, in the hopes that if you study the matter, it might help you learn
how to present yourself more honestly and productively in written
discussion.
If you truly believe it is 'stupid and unrealistic' to *expect* someone
to be unbaised, then you believe it is unfair to demand that they be
unbiased. You cannot mitigate that demand by simply claiming that any
expectation of a lack of bias is naive or ingenuous. It is therefore
not stupid or unrealistic to expect a lack of bias unless you believe it
is unfair to have that expectation.
--
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] (Nathaniel Jay Lee)
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.os.linux
Subject: Re: "pure" Linux??
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 20:58:13 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
OSguy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
>Excuse me while I reply to mjcr (his original post didn't show up on my
>newsgroups)....
>
>Steve Matheson wrote:
>
>>
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>> Also you
>> > might also stay away from Mandrake since they seem to have modified the
>> > kernel.
>
>I don't buy that Mandrake made an unapproved modification to the Linux kernel
>after being approved by Linus or Alan Cox (especially a stable Linux Kernel
>that Mandrake is based on). I'd believe that they may have modified other
>scripts or supporting packages (ie-Run Levels).
>
>Please give specifics of these modifications that are not or will not be in
>the present or future approved Linux kernels.
>
>
Mandrake did a lot of 'clean-up' of the header files and
such in the kernel that they use. At the moment it hasn't
presented any problems (that I know of) with binary
compatibility, but there is the potential for some of the
clean-up to cause problems in source compilation (if they
'cleaned-up' an error that was depended on by something).
It isn't a huge problem at the moment. But they have done
a lot more hacking in kernel code than most I believe.
SuSE is probably the next biggest offender, and most of
their kernel coding is related to patching up to current
development levels and adding some extensions for YaST
(SuSE's setup utility) and some other small changes.
For proof, download a source package from kernel.org of a
'stable' kernel and then download the same kernel
version's source from Mandrake's web site, or SuSE's web
site and start comparing them. There are a lot of
differences between the 'standard/stock' kernel and
Mandrake's or SuSE's kernel.
BTW, for SuSE and Mandrake lovers, I use SuSE on most of
my machines, and Mandrake a couple of them, so please
don't flame me for being biased. It's a honest observation.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Nathaniel Jay Lee
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:03:16 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:53:07 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:06:03 +0100, Robert Moir
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> >[...]
> >> >>
> >> >> Slowly and carefully re-read the message you are responding to...
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Sorry, Jedi, if I am making a mistake here perhaps you would be kind
> >enough
> >> >to spell it out for me? The poster was claiming that Windows ME costs
> >$289
> >>
> >> 209 pounds is MORE than 289 USD the last time I checked.
> >
> >What are you on? All the prices he quoted were dollars.
>
> ...the sort that allowed me to see that the symbol next to
> 209 was infact the "funky L" that denotes british pounds
> rather than a US dollar sign.
Ah... ok... well, some keyboards will do that if you've not got them set up
right.
Here's the scoop from the MS site that he linked to:
http://shop.microsoft.com/product/windows/msline.htm
Limited time special upgrade version: $59.95
For users upgrading from Windows 98 or Windows 98 Second Edition.
Upgrade version: $109.00
For users upgrading from Windows 95 or 98
Full version: $209
For new Windows users.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Simon Cooke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 14:04:54 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:52:22 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> If you can install MacOS9 on a bare machine then it is indeed
> >> the equivalent of a full licence of any Microsoft OS.
> >
> >Please show me where I can buy a bare machine that will run MacOS9, and
> >which does not come pre-bundled with a copy of MacOS.
>
> It still doesn't matter. Unless you can't install the media
> on a wiped machine, it is not of the same utility as an M$
> upgrade media package.
>
> It's actually more useful.
But it's still an upgrade to your existing license. Which means that it
doesn't cost $99 to buy a brand new copy of MacOS 9 that you can install on
a Mac that came with no operating system. Heck, part of the OS is still in
ROM deliberately so that you have to own Apple hardware or it won't work.
Simon
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:12:56 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 11:53:07 -0700, Simon Cooke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> >
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:06:03 +0100, Robert Moir
> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> >[...]
> >> >>
> >> >> Slowly and carefully re-read the message you are responding to...
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Sorry, Jedi, if I am making a mistake here perhaps you would be kind
> >enough
> >> >to spell it out for me? The poster was claiming that Windows ME costs
> >$289
> >>
> >> 209 pounds is MORE than 289 USD the last time I checked.
> >
> >What are you on? All the prices he quoted were dollars.
>
> ...the sort that allowed me to see that the symbol next to
> 209 was infact the "funky L" that denotes british pounds
> rather than a US dollar sign.
My apologies. That was a typo on my part. It should of read $209. Whoops.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:13:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >> >Please answer Aaron's question. Just who or what is posting to Usenet
>> >> >under that name if not a real person?
>> >>
>> >> Please read my answer. I don't care.
>> >
>> >That's not an answer--that's an evasion.
>>
>> No, it is an answer, and the only answer I can give because it is the
>> only statement which answers the question in context.
>
>Still failing logic course?
>
>There's not context. Either he's a real person or not.
>
>I'm sorry that your grasp on reality is too weak to understand this.
"There's not context?" What the hell does that mean? Of course the
question has a context. Are you still failing your logic courses? Do
you still beat your wife? What is real?
Ever hear of a Turing Test? Do you check your driver's license when you
get up in the morning to make sure you're still who you were yesterday?
What name is on my birth certificate?
I had no idea there were so many people who can't understand English (or
simply can't grasp abstractions) yet are posting to Usenet. JS/PL is
not a real person.
--
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: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...)
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:09:37 -0400
Roberto Alsina wrote:
>
> Eric Bennett escribi�:
> >
> > Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 16:05:02 GMT, Roberto Alsina wrote:
> > >
> > > >> 1) uses its influence to oppose the privatization of public education
> > > >in
> > > >> the United States
> > > >>
> > > >> http://www.nea.org/aboutnea/faq.html
> > > >
> > > >Position that could be taken because they would like universal
> > > >availability of education...
> > >
> > > So they're "communists" ! This is PROOF !
> >
> > Microsoft would like universal use of Windows in all the schools.
> > Therefore, Microsoft is communist. QED.
>
> So THAT's why Aaron allows himself to be seen in company of us
> linux lefties! The lesser evil! ;-)
Actually, Microsoft displays MANY communist tendancies.
1) infusion of "political officers" into target corporations
2) sell "happy-happy joy-joy" now; confiscatory taxation after you
agree.
3) Dissent will not be tolerated
4) Constant propaganda campaigns against competing systems that
allow freedom.
5) Keeping customers from leaving by holding their data hostage
(standard communist technique of keeping citizens from defecting
is to always keep one family member hostage).
6) Absolute abhorance for true open-market economy
>
> --
> Roberto Alsina
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "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"
J: 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
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:18:30 +0100
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Tue, 29 Aug 2000 19:09:13 +0100, Robert Moir
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >"Erik Funkenbusch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:NFHq5.8041$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >[...]
> >> > Oh look...the Monopoly defender is attacking closed-market tactics
> >> > of another vendor.
> >>
> >> I'm not attacking anything. There's absolutely nothing wrong with
Apple
> >> doing this.
> >>
> >> I'm simply stating that you can't compare OS9 at $99 with full version
> >> Windows since they are not the same type of liscense.
> >
> >Good luck Erik! Personally I think you might find herding cats easier
than
> >trying to reason with alt.usenet.kooks' unsung poster child here!
>
> No, we just recognize bullshit when we see it.
>
> The question is not whether or not you are likely to have another
> copy of FOO. The REAL question is whether or not you can use the
> media in question on a bare machine.
>
> If you can install MacOS9 on a bare machine then it is indeed
> the equivalent of a full licence of any Microsoft OS.
An upgrade licence is not the same as a "full product" licence however you
look at it, and whether or not you think the company concerned have got
their pricing right or wrong. As I've alluded to before, I think that $209
(the price of Win ME full licence) is a bit too much, but its Microsoft's
ball and if people don't like it I suggest they don't buy it. I won't.
The upgrade price of Win ME looks to be $109 according to the URL posted
earlier on this thread, or $59.95 on special offer. While $109 is more than
the Mac OS9 $99, I'd say the prices were comparable.
> There are few things more annoying than the requirement to
> sequentially install various versions of a software product
> due to such 'upgrade licences'.
Yes. That would be why you do not have to do this with Windows upgrade
products, I'd imagine. You can install on a "bare" machine with an upgrade
product.
------------------------------
From: "Robert Moir" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 22:21:01 +0100
"Christophe Ochal" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:paOq5.282$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Sam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schreef in berichtnieuws
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> So? Should we feel sorry for them? I'll pay for winblows when they bring
out
> a version i actually enjoy using...
Theft is still theft. Would it be ok to steal your car if I didn't like the
colour?
------------------------------
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: Tue, 29 Aug 2000 17:23:24 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Joe R. in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>wrote:
>
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> [...]
>> >LOL This demonstrates that you have absolutely no clue Max.
>>
>> About taxes? I'll admit I don't know much of the details. As with most
>> things, I find that understanding the principles is usually enough
>> until, for some reason, I'm forced to deal with the details.
>>
>
>And this is classic Max.
>
>"I really don't understand what I'm talking about, but I've learned a
>few of the words involved in the discussion so I'll try to pass myself
>off as an expert."
Were I as ludicrous and immature as you and 'JS/PL', Joe, I'd be
immediately forwarding a complaint to your ISP, but I have not done so;
I'm not at all concerned with your actual misrepresentation of my
statement, or your sentiments concerning my style of free inquiry.
I will, however, forward such a complete and ensure it is followed up on
if you should ever so falsely and dishonestly indicate you are quoting
me ever again. I'll point out that there's plenty of material in the
thousands of posts I've made which you could take out of context to the
same effect. But you are indicating and stating that you are quoting
me, and you are not. If you wish to continue posting to Usenet without
inconvenience, you will never do so again.
I am, for the record, entirely uninterested in any paltry attempts at
justification or discussion of this issue on your part, and will
consider any further quoting of this offending text in any message that
*you* post to constitute a second offense, and will inform your ISP
immediately.
--
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
******************************
