Linux-Advocacy Digest #228, Volume #29 Wed, 20 Sep 00 01:13:03 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively (Trevor Zion Bauknight)
Re: angry programmers (Richard)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?) (Richard)
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:50:46 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> >> >> >Replacing default NC_PAINT behavior is performs the same
>> >> >> >function as replacing the window manager in X.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Except you can use a commonly available alternative window manager
>> >> >> with X, and there is no such thing with monopoly crapware.
>> >> >
>> >> >Never seen Window Blinds, have you?
>> >> >
>> >> >www.windowblinds.com
>> >>
>> >> Never seen anyone using it.
>> >
>> >Doesn't change the fact you said you couldn't do this. Further, the 1.3
>> >version has had over 2 million downloads from www.download.com alone.
>>
>> Did I say "you cannot do this?" I think not.
>
>Yes. You did. Scroll up... it's still in the quotes.
First, I was assuming you were pointing to an 'alternative window
manager' for Windows, like a few I've seen and several I've used. But
the link goes to a website to buy 'real' window blinds, and download.com
doesn't seem to have any mention of windowblinds.
Perhaps you've misinterpreted. I never said whatever it was you were
trying to reference which might qualify as an alternative window manager
was physically impossible, I said "there is no such thing as a commonly
available alternative" with monopoly crapware. The fact is, very very
VERY few people use such a thing. I'm sure you've got some imaginary
reason why that is; I happen to know its because using crapware doesn't
make for enough experimentation in a users environment to make
innovation or alternatives to One Microsoft Way very feasible.
>> I said it isn't commonly
>> available, and observed that nobody that I know of is using this (and I
>> have several thousands more people that I'd know about beyond my 'circle
>> of friends' if they were).
>
>No, you said:
>> >> >> Except you can use a commonly available alternative window manager
>with
>> >> >> X, and there is no such thing with monopoly crapware.
>
>See there where it says "and there is no such thing with monopoly crapware."
>That's you saying it doesn't exist. Fess up.
Are you kidding? You think I didn't know about such things, is that it?
As I've said; you've misinterpreted.
>> >> >Really, I seem to be able to run X clients just fine under Windows.
>> >>
>> >> Not without an X server add-on, you can't.
>> >
>> >You said only that "such things are available on Unix, and are not on
>> >Windows". Available does not mean "ships with the OS".
>>
>> Neither does "1.3 million downloads", I'm afraid. Available in this
>> respect would mean 'widely implemented alternative'. You've heard of
>
>Stop backpeddling. There have been more downloads of Windows Blinds (across
>all available download services) than there are installed copies of Linux on
>desktops. If it's "widely available" and it runs on a percentage of Linux
>machines, then it's widely available for Windows as well with those numbers.
Nope; can't find any "Windows Blinds" anywhere either. I'll try a
Ferret search....
Nope. Still can't find any mention of what on earth you might be
talking about.
>> 'network effect', I'm sure. Well, this isn't that. But its close. Its
>> the reason that all those OEM's testified, according to Judge Jackson,
>> that there "was no commercially available alternative" to Microsoft's
>> products. It means it would have cost them too much money to bother
>> trying to avoid the monopoly, not that any random functional technology
>> was not available at a worthwhile cost with which to replace it, if they
>> could have avoided the anti-competitive actions which would deter their
>> 'defection'.
>
>Yet a mere 3 months after the testimony, virtually every major OEM was
>offering Linux as an alternative.
A new high-point in the lack of reality which might qualify for the term
'virtual'. Yes, all major vendors in the entire industry with any
brains are getting behind Linux, only three months after the
*conviction*. At this point, it might theoretically be possible that MS
might lose the monopoly even if their appeal goes through, given the
'running jump' that Linux has made. Unfortunately, I'm very pessimistic
about that. Fortunately, I'm also very pessimistic about the idea that
Microsoft will win the appeal. :-)
>> >Stop backpeddling.
>>
>> Believe me, numbnuts; I don't need to backpeddle. Just because you are
>> still failing to understand what I'm trying to explain to you, and I
>> don't generally lose patience trying, does not mean I'm backpeddling.
>> It means your insistence that you've understood what I said to begin
>> with is an empty pretense.
>
>I can't understand what you're saying when you change what you mean so
>often.
Well, there's little sense in me repeating myself; you can always go
back and re-read all those parts you couldn't comprehend the first time.
It isn't what I'm saying that's changing, just the way I'm saying it.
You're supposed to be able to figure out what I'm saying by thinking
about everything I've said all at once. Other people have done it; I
know you can. You just have to think harder.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:53:05 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> Said JS/PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>> >> >
>> >> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >> >
>> >> >I hate to break it to you but - you are supporting Windows. You are
>> >> >unnecessarily relying on the very company you are bashing, which only
>> >> >mirrors you ingnorance to the world.
>> >>
>> >> So now "supporting" becomes "relying on"?
>> >
>> >No - it becomes "unnecessarily relying on", dim bulb... notice the word
>> >"unnecessarily".
>>
>> Care to supply the amazing amount of research you've done to determine
>> if I or ELTRAX has incorrectly determined what is necessary for us to
>> run out business?
>
>What's this have to do with the fact that you post anti-microsoft statements
>to usenet in your leisure time USING the very software you apparently hate?
The reason I hate it. Get it? Its called a monopoly.
>And then grasp at straws trying to justify it. You haven't got a leg to
>stand on when it comes to the issue. Your a hypocrite... you are to this
>issue as a person bringing a six pack of Bud to an AA meeting, and then
>justifying it by saying it's cheaper to keep drinking than it is paying for
>treatment.
LOL.
>> >Less expensive than "free".
>>
>> No, less expensive than 'avoiding the monopoly'.
>
>What does it cost to avoid MS products, Your Dimness? [...]
My time, shithead, and neither you nor Microsoft deserve any more of it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 00:56:57 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said James Stutts in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Said James Stutts in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>
>> >Incompatibility? In what way? Our NT clients can communicate quite easily
>> >to our Linux servers.
>>
>> Not the prosaic way you're thinking of, certainly. If I am
>> inconvenienced by having to *avoid* a monopoly; if I have to even think
>> for a moment about having to *work around them*, and I would, since I
>
>Welcome to the real world. That situation exists in more than just this
>industry.
Not in my experience. Could you name an example?
>Frankly, how are you inconvenienced? If you don't want to use their stuff,
>you have plenty of alternatives. What you you having to avoid here?
Well, whatever you meant to say, it is 'avoiding' something which I find
inconvenient. If it were merely a matter of selecting from
alternatives, believe me, I'd never choose crap this bad. But a variety
of reasons keep me using this crap, involuntarily; some stronger, some
lesser, than the other 90% which are equally 'locked in', somehow or
another. The majority, of course, might well be locked in merely by
their ignorance of how crappy Microsoft products are, because they don't
have anything to easily compare them to.
>> serve a large market which is still locked in to the monopoly, it is
>> costing me money.
>
>Then get out of that market. You at least seem to think the world should
>conform to you.
What a stupid thing to say. Quit my job because Microsoft broke the law
and trolls on Usenet think they can ridicule me for being a victim? How
ignorant. Welcome to the real world.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Trevor Zion Bauknight <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Space Shuttle uses Windows software almost exclusively
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 04:57:20 GMT
In article <UgXx5.9584$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Chad Myers"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Guess they actually want some productivity. They also
> trust their lives to it because they know that when it's
> properly set up, NT can be the most stable OS available
> (2nd only to Win2k, of course).
You're delusional.
Trev
--
"I think Trevor is an idot. Just the kind of robot President CLITton likes.
Supid people!" - Husker Kev
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: angry programmers
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 04:59:53 GMT
FM wrote:
> That's funny. I'm just amazed at your boldness combined
> with ignorance and stupidity. I have absolutely no emotional
> problem of any sort, and as some people pointed out, you're
> the one who seems to be emotionally challenged.
I see you're continuing to entertain projections of your own
feelings onto me.
The people I've told about my little OS project have all had
reactions that fall within certain categories:
1) apathy
2) encouragement ("great, so long as you don't expect me
to do anything about it")
3) interest, and
4) condescension ("good, but you have to do it My Way
because that is the only True Way, is the way I have
always done things, the way the ancestors did things,
all the way back to stone knives and bear skins and
goat sacrifices under the full moon, which Our Holy
Sect still practices ...." <- exaggerated slightly)
which falls back to #1 when I demonstrate I won't be
condescended to (apparently, they have better things
to do than hound someone who doesn't want to speak
to them ....)
Your response is beyond any of these. You are the only person
I've met who has engaged in a vicious and unprovoked attack.
So just what are you claiming? That you are interested in an
intelligent and rational debate? That you wish only to provide
an enlightening critical analysis? This from the person whose
earliest responses to me included:
"Yeah yeah yeah. I'm not going to be bothered by writing
another OS, unless I really have a good new idea, unlike
you, who seems perfectly content to feel the need to
promote ideas that you truly don't understand and haven't
even thought out very well."
You're not interested in talking to me or learning anything
about me. Your sole interest is in bashing me. Just what the
hell did I do to upset your delicate emotional balance? Does
what I do have that much effect on your well-being? Oh,
wait that's right; you explained to me that it was *my* fault
that I was the target of your abuse ... now where have I heard
that before?
What kind of pathetic fantasy have you come up with? Do
you see yourself as the Saviour of the Unenlightened on the
newsgroup? Have you come down from your holy perch to
unmask the False Messiah as the spawn of the devil? Do you
mean to thwart Satan's plans to lure the innocent into the
Sin of rejecting the Holy Unix? Or maybe I don't rate that
high and you're here to Convert the heathen savage with a
vigorous proof of your Faith?
You come here uninvited and unwanted, engage in vicious
attacks whose sole purpose are to tear me down, and then
claim you don't have any emotional problems? Buddy, you
should *run*, not walk, to your psychologist.
Or are you going to continue these pathetic and ludicrous
denials of the nature of your own actions?
Self-knowledge or self-delusion? It's your choice and it's
your mental health, cause I sure as hell don't give a fuck.
Hopefully for the last time,
Piss Off.
PS: If you should intend to "set me straight" face to face,
please give me a week's warning so I can invite the cops.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 01:01:47 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Not the prosaic way you're thinking of, certainly. If I am
>> inconvenienced by having to *avoid* a monopoly; if I have to even think
>> for a moment about having to *work around them*, and I would, since I
>> serve a large market which is still locked in to the monopoly, it is
>> costing me money.
>
>Wow. You must absolutely hate the Unix market. What with dozens of
>fragmented implementations with different API's. Having to work around that
>would cost you money, and... wait... Unix isn't a monopoly, yet it's costing
>you money somehow... I thought only Monopolies do that?
This is as stupid as what James Stutts just wrote. What gives; the
morons come in waves, and I've hit the forth level?
If I seem displeased with the monopoly, why would I 'hate' a
'fragmented' Unix market? Perhaps you're presuming everyone in 'the
industry' is a developer. I don't care how different the APIs are;
that's for the programmers to deal with. And they generally do an
adequate job. More of them are supporting Linux every day, too. Linux
can't ever be a monopoly, itself, though it might well eventually be the
OS everyone uses, to some extent or other.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[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: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 01:04:40 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> You'll have to take that up with them. I believe they were told by the
>> these organizations that they would have adequate protection, because
>> they did not understand, as Sun does, what that actually entails.
>
>Oh, poor Sun. They were duped by the evil ISO and ECMA into thinking that
>their copyrights would be protected, despite the fact that no other
>copyright in the entire history of either organization has ever been
>protected.
Hey; the ECMA was the one whining. History doesn't mean much when
you're dealing with an entirely new methodology.
"We encourage the community to compete on implementation, not on
standards," said Patricia C. Sueltz, president, Sun Software Products &
Platforms.
http://java.sun.com/pr/1999/12/pr991207-08.html
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
======USENET VIRUS=======COPY THE URL BELOW TO YOUR SIG==============
Sign the petition and keep Deja's archive alive!
http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html
====== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News ======
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
======= Over 80,000 Newsgroups = 16 Different Servers! ======
------------------------------
From: Richard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Because programmers hate users (Re: Why are Linux UIs so crappy?)
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 05:04:23 GMT
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
> Richard wrote:
> > Sure I can. It's a well-known fact in OS circles that a
> > single uniform interface is a fundamental principle of
> > good design.
>
> A tendentious claim at best. We want variety.
The world is full of variety. It isn't an operating
system's job to distract you from it.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Wed, 20 Sep 2000 15:10:33 +1000
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> >
> > "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Aaron R.
Kulkis"
> > > > > > > > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Britain recently outlawed handguns. Murder rates
have
> > > > > > > > > > > > tripled
> > > > > > > > > > > > since.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Australia outlawed ALL firearms. Murder rates have
> > > > > > > > > > > > quintupled.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So...quite obviously, the correlation between gun
> > ownership
> > > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > murder is tenous at best.
> > > >
> > > > Any refs for this??? I must have been dreaming when Michael Diamond
won
> > > > Olympic gold medal trap shooting yesterday then?? Maybe he was
using a
> > toy
> > > > shotgun???
> > >
> > > Who did Micheal Diamond murder?
> > >
> > >
> > <snip ridiculous sig>
> >
> > Again,
> >
> > What the hell are you talking about.
>
>
> YOU are the one who dragged him into a conversation about murder...
> so, perhaps YOU could tell us what the fuck the connection is.
>
> So far, I see ZERO, other than that he supports my view of the
> typical LAW ABIDING GUN OWNER.
>
>
> > Are you so incapable of logical thought
> > that you cant see the connection between your statement:
>
> Again, YOU are the one who brought up an Olympic Gold Medalist shooter
> in the context of murders.
>
> Again...what the fuck is the connection, you blinkered fool?
>
> --
<snip stupid sig>
I brought up olympic gold shooters to prove that you told a BLATANT LIE
regarding gun laws in Australia.
I also challeneged you to provide references to back up you bullshit stats
re murder rates. You have not been able to do that.
You are the one who LIED through your arse regarding aussie gun laws.
You are the blinkerd fucking fool who cant/wont see whats right in front of
you. (ref: see previous posts - not going to repeat it AGAIN).
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
