Linux-Advocacy Digest #413, Volume #29 Tue, 3 Oct 00 00:13:05 EDT
Contents:
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Mike Byrns)
Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years (Mike Byrns)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Mike Byrns)
Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway? (Mike Byrns)
Re: How low can they go...? ("James A. Robertson")
Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$ Voluntary Split ...) (ZnU)
Re: How low can they go...? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Grad school in TX Was:(Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a M$
Voluntary Split)) ("James Stutts")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 23:45:33 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >No, Word 2.0 for OS/2 was a completely graphical word processor.
>>
>> That's right. Stick a GUI on DOS Word and you get Word for OS/2. Word
>> for Windows, however, was a separate and far more complete development.
>
>How the hell do you just "stick" a GUI on a DOS based word processor? The
>entire architecutres are different. How they represent their data is
>different. How you control the applications are different. How you render
>the final text is different.
>
>That's like saying you can just "stick" wings on a car and make it an
>airplane.
That's hilarious.
--
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: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 21:42:28 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> There is a lot of hype about Linux.
There's a lot of hype about *everything* in IT these days. The only
problem is when a product is all hype and no substance.
> I use it to learn a bit about Unix
> at home. But as a desktop, Win2k is really years ahead and has
> numerous high quality apps. It is also very stable.
And very expensive. I run two desktop systems on a graduate student's
budget, and hope to a third system in a few months. I can't afford to
ride the MS upgrade treadmill.
BTW, not all reports coming in from the field describe W2K as stable,
either.
> I would really like to know why anyone would prefer Linux as a
> desktop? Reasons such as "Win2k is made by the Evil Empire are not
> really valid".
Why not? You want our opinions, but you tell us which opinions we can
answer with?
MS is not the only company whose products I avoid simply because that
company made them. Some types of corporate behavior simply aren't
justifiable. Some of us think that buying a product or holding shares of
stock reinforce a company's habits of behavior, and that some behavior
shouldn't be reinforced.
> Linux is a promising product, and I suppose it needs its supporters.
> But for the rest of us, we just want to be productive.
I use Linux, and I'm productive.
Use what suits you; I'm not going to make you give up your W2K.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 03:45:36 GMT
"." wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >> I can recreate the situation about 90% of the time. I'll take a picture of
> >> it with my new digital camera.
>
> > If, in fact, it happens that often, it's 100% a hardware issue or a driver
> > issue, not a Win2K issue. If it's something like IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL or
> > PAGE_FAULT_IN_NONPAGED_AREA, it's definately a hardware issue.
>
> This may indeed be true, but then that would insinuate that the hardware is
> only broken inside W2K, and NOT inside windows ME. (not to mention other operating
> systems).
He said hardware or driver issue. Use logic. Given that the hardware is the same
perhaps it would make sense to see if the same driver binaries are being used. I bet
they're not. You never did post the bugcheck error. Was it IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL or
PAGE_FAULT_IN_NONPAGED_AREA? Both are indicitive of a kernel driver defect. The same
kind of kernel driver defects that can bring a Linux system down.
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 21:53:38 -0500
Todd wrote:
> Besides 16MB of memory is useless for today's applications. We routinely
> have 2-4 gigabytes of main memory on our multiprocessor production machines.
And what does that have to do with what OS *I* should run?
> Windows 2000 has options for how you want to deal with
> crashes.
I thought it didn't crash?
> Since Windows 2000 never crashes on me regularly, I don't bother
> with recover options that much.
How often is "regularly"?
> > >Try running Netscape on RedHat 6.2 and see how stable Linux is then.
> > >Sometimes, a crash will bring down all of Linux and you get the famous
> > >segment dumps.
> >
> > That's bollocks.
>
> Well, that's what most Linux users say as well. But Linux fails completely
> and dumps the memory (I'm sure you know what I mean :)
No, you're posting hearsay that you read in a newsgroup and thought you could
cite as evidence.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 21:48:18 -0500
Todd wrote:
> "Ingemar Lundin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>
> > gimp for advanced image editing...
>
> gimp? sheesh... even paint shop pro is better than Gimp, and then there is
> adobe photoshop for serious work. Not to say that Gimp sucks, but it isn't
> as good as PSP or Photoshop.
>
> > and more ...and more
> > (this is just whats come out of my head right now, im sure that there is a
> > lots of folks around to
> > tell you even more about that part)
>
> Face it. Linux apps. are inferior to their Windows counterparts in *most*
> cases. Yes, there are exceptions, but not usually.
Like many other WinDefenders, you appeal too often to special cases. When it
comes to graphics, I'm just barely ahead of Joe User. My needs are modest, and
The GIMP offers more than I'll ever have time to learn. I top-notch graphics
designer might need to use some version of Windows (or the Mac!), but you can't
stretch that argument to cover everyone on the planet.
Nor are PSP and Photoshop the final words in "graphics". For instance, I've
never noticed W2K running on an SGI graphics workstation. Do I conclude from
that that W2K is defective, and that no one should use it?
No, that would be appealing to special cases.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 03:55:17 GMT
"." wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy MH <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Anyone with any experience knows that you either have a hardware\driver
> > problem, or you're lying. Why perpetrate such BS? Does this help your
> > precious Linux? It only serves to denigrate the weight of any assertion you
> > make, relegating you to irrelevant. Get a clue.
>
> 1. I'm not lying.
OK. You need a new video driver.
> 2. I gave my specs in detail, and the problem in moderate detail.
Why didn't you give the description of the problem in more than moderate detail? Were
you
afraid the blame would fall on nVidia rather than Microsoft? Be aware that a broken
driver can crash Linux or Solaris just as easily as it can Windows 2000.
> 3. Its not my "precious" linux. If youd been paying attention, you would have
> seen that I dont particularly like linux any more than I like windows. My
> tastes go beyond both.
So you should understand that there are tradeoffs with both. If you want performance
you
cannot keep switching back and forth from kernel mode to user mode for every little
thing. Microkernel OSs are slow for that very reason. Speed or safety?
> 5. The NVIDIA driver *may* be a problem, I never said this was impossible. I just
> find it interesting that the W2K version of their driver would therefore be less
> stable than their windows ME version.
Even though it's less mature code that's been through about a tenth the iterative
development and compatibility testing as the Windows 9x driver?
> And beyond that, (for a little added detail)
> it is only *one* winamp 3d visualization which causes this problem. The rest work
> almost unbelievably well.
Have you written the developer or are you just going to hope it gets fixed sometime?
> 6. Shut the fuck up, you stupid asshole.
My wife calls these advocacy newsgroups the "nerdboy size-offs". She's got a wicked
sense
of humor. She claims that no matter how smart a bunch of guys you take you'll always
end
up having their discussions end up on who's got the bigger dick, turbocharger, win
record
or uptime. I think she's right.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux to reach NT 3.51 proportions in next 2 years
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 03:56:58 GMT
Matthias Warkus wrote:
> It was the Mon, 02 Oct 2000 12:49:25 GMT...
> ...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > "Matthias Warkus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > It was the Mon, 02 Oct 2000 01:00:30 GMT...
> > > ...and Chad Myers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > > Well, here's my spin!
> > > > > If a couple of guys in some office somewhere can come up with an outlook
> > > > > express replacement which
> > > > > has the look and feel of outlook express and works better than outlook
> > > > > express, then what in the hell are
> > > > > you whining about Chad?
> > > >
> > > > Who's whining? I think it's amusing how, on one hand, the Penguinistas
> > > > bash MS for all sorts of things including look-and-feel and functionality
> > > > in Windows, yet take every chance to copy it because they can't come
> > > > up with anything that's a.) originally and b.) useful.
> > >
> > > "Hey, let's make cars with square wheels! At least they look
> > > original!"
> >
> > So then you admit that many applications and widgets and all
> > sorts of other things are direct copies from Windows?
>
> No, I don't. You're not very good at semantics.
>
> BTW you had better give me some examples for your claim...
>
> > By the way, in response to your square wheels comment... there's
> > a difference between reinventing the wheel and copying every single
> > nuance about the original.
>
> Have you got a bit of knowledge about sprockets?
Yeah, it's Mike Myers in a black turtleneck. "Touch my monkey!"
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 03:58:11 GMT
Nathaniel Jay Lee wrote:
> Charlie Ebert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spoke thusly:
> blah, dede blah blah blah Windows sucks blah blah.
>
> Nonrational rant blah, Wintrolls, blah suck blah blah,
> leave blah, Windows blah blah.
>
> As much as I enjoy Linux, and the occassional troll, I
> seriously cannot stand to read another line of your
> drivel and crap.
>
> Bye Charlie, I'm sorry to see you back. *PLONK*
If we cannot agree on the best OS at least we can agree on the worst
posters.
------------------------------
From: Mike Byrns <"mike.byrns"@technologist,.com>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: What kind of WinTroll Idiot are you anyway?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 03:59:17 GMT
"." wrote:
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > I have the exact opposite experience, in that Win98Se doesn't drop a
> > note but XMMS is always stalling and in addition if I have XMMS
> > already started I can't start Wine->Agent which just hangs the machine
> > until I close XMMS at which point Agent (under Wine) starts and I can
> > now restart XMMS...
>
> Do you have DMA IDE drives? If so, use hdparm to turn on DMA, and your
> skipping problems will very likely be solved.
How's gramma supposed to figure that out. Linux is just NOT ready for the
desktop folks.
------------------------------
From: "James A. Robertson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [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, 03 Oct 2000 04:00:57 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> >> Said James A. Robertson in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
> >> >> >"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >So, since Windows sucks (at least from what you have posted, that's what
> >> >> >you believe), then why is it successful?
> >> >>
> >> >> Anti-competitive pre-load contracts, anti-competitive developments,
> >> >> anti-competitive marketing, and pretty much a slew of anti-competitive,
> >> >> and illegal, business activity. Next question?
> >> >
> >> >So if they do this, how did AOL survive the onslaught?
> >>
> >> Probably through anti-competitive activities, would be my guess. I
> >> though AOL was anti-competitive since before Win95. But I wouldn't tag
> >> any specific action of AOL to 'survive the onslaught' outside of the
> >> common knowledge, without evidence. The fundamental issue was probably
> >> one of using growth by acquisition to fuel false marketing of
> >> 'popularity'. "Look at how successful we are (using capital to buy out
> >> all the competition). Boy, we must be *really great*."
> >
> >So in your mind, any business success is via cheating.
>
> You obviously misread something. Try again.
I took that from your first sentence in the paragraph above
>
> >It hasn't
> >ocurred to you that good marketing and a 'good enough' product are all
> >that's needed? (See Java for a pure example of this)
>
> No, a competitive product in a competitive market is all that's needed.
> When you say 'Java', do you mean the product, the platform, or the
> technology?
>
Any. marketing and money beat technology <every> day.
> --
> 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! =-----
--
James A. Robertson
Technical Product Manager (Smalltalk), Cincom
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<Talk Small and Carry a Big Class Library>
------------------------------
From: ZnU <[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, 03 Oct 2000 04:02:37 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> It was the Sat, 30 Sep 2000 13:30:25 -0700...
> ...and Jim Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >> In what sense are rights given to one by the government? In the sense
> > >> that government can refrain from siezing it?
> > >
> > >Next time pay attention. The constitution is not the government.
> > >
> >
> > I can't comment on the German constitution, but here in the US, the
> > constitution grants no rights, it merely affirms some that exist,
> > indpendant of the document.
>
> Hey, that's interesting. A new point of view to me. Does the document
> explicitly state that it's just affirming existing rights or is this a
> matter of interpretation?
>
> If a constitution simply states "People have the right to do X", it's
> up to the reader to decide whether this is just reproduction of facts
> or an act actually granting those rights.
In many cases, the language is more in the form of "the government isn't
allowed to prevent you from doing this" than "you are allowed to do
this," which seems to make a rather clear statement.
For example:
"Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
or
"Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause,
supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place
to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
> It's probably due to my European provenance and my utilitarian
> thinking that I always thought the second interpretation was common
> sense.
--
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.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2000 00:04:17 -0400
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >And there you go again, claiming criminal conduct when anti-trust law is
>> >civil, not criminal law. Criminal has very strict meaning in a court of
>> >law.
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by "anti-trust law is civil". A *trial* is
>> 'civil or criminal'. The *statute* (a major component of law) says that
>> monopolizing is a felony. That sounds like criminal conduct, to me.
>> Most cases, however, are brought in civil court, because reparations,
>> not punishment, is being sought. The 'very strict' meaning of criminal
>> is "against the law". As in, anti-trust violations are criminal
>> conduct, whether they are criminally prosecuted or not.
>
>A corporation cannot commit a felony. I've never heard of a corporation
>being convicted of murder. PEOPLE can only be convicted of felonies.
Well, that's entirely wrong. That's why corporations are considered
'artificial persons'. So that they can be treated like a person in
terms of certain rights and responsibilities. Apparently, you've never
read anti-trust law, which clearly applies to incorporated persons as
much as real people:
"Every person who shall monopolize, or attempt to monopolize, or combine
or conspire with any other person or persons, to monopolize any part of
the trade or commerce among the several States, or with foreign nations,
shall be deemed guilty of a felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be
punished by fine not exceeding $10,000,000 if a corporation, or, if any
other person, $350,000, or by imprisonment not exceeding three years, or
by both said punishments, in the discretion of the court."
So its pretty obvious why corporations are rarely prosecuted criminally;
you can't put them in jail, and the fines aren't high enough to act as a
deterrent in many cases these days. A civil charge allows for a finding
of liability, and an injunctive remedy.
>*THAT* is why anti-trust is a civil matter, and not a criminal one.
>
>A civil court case cannot establish criminal guilt.
No, it establishes civil guilt. If you're trying to say that since 'a
preponderance of evidence' is all that is needed, while in a civil case
it must be 'beyond a reasonable doubt', Microsoft's actions can't be
said to be criminal? How utterly pedantic.
>> >What worked? We're talking about how you claim that Win32 was
>"specifically
>> >engineered" to prevent other office programs from working somehow. Back
>up
>> >that statement.
>>
>> It worked. Other office programs don't work as well as Microsoft ones.
>> QED. Perhaps you aren't aware of the long history, going back a decade,
>> of third party application developers complaining about Microsoft not
>> fully disclosing their knowledge of the platform.
>
>Please answer the question. *HOW* was Win32 "specifically engineered" to
>prevent competition from other Office package vendors.
I don't have specifics. If you make it worth my while, I could provide
some examples. Here's a hint I'll give you for free, though: search for
'undocumented API' and 'Microsoft' in your favorite search engine. A
cross-reference for WordPerfect and Lotus 1-2-3 would probably be
helpful, if you can manage it.
>> >> Yes, but it wasn't dominating the application developers, yet, until
>> >> after Win95 was released. Lots of developers were actually trying to
>> >> use 'extensions' with DLLs the way MS said should be done. Little did
>> >
>> >What the hell are you talking about. There's no such thing as
>"extensions"
>> >with DLL's in Win32. Are you talking about Shell extensions? They
>didn't
>> >exist until Win95 was released, years later.
>>
>> Bullshit. You could add functionality to File Manager way back in
>> Win3.1. I'm talking about 'extensions'; any kind. Figure it out.
>
>No, do not try and pretend this is some generic "any kind" of statement.
>Which extensions? Which vendors? If you can't answer these questions,
>you're just making this shit up as you go along.
Bullshit. Wake up and smell the middleware, Erik; these are not
original accusations I'm making.
>> >> they know (we pretend) that they would have to use more and more of the
>> >> Win32 API itself, because MS would eventually bundle everything into
>it,
>> >> in order to minimize the control that application, and specifically
>> >> middleware, developers might have to threaten the monopoly.
>> >
>> >This is gibberish. It makes no sense technically and is vague and hand
>> >waving. You don't know what you're talking about, do you?
>>
>> Nice tap-dancing. Pretend its gibberish, and you don't have to respond
>> to it. Or are you actually so ignorant you can't figure it out?
>
>Your statements are contradictory and make no sense. What does "using more
>of the API" have to do with " MS eventually bundling everything [whatever
>that is refering to] into it"?
Well, the more developers are using the Win32 API to provide necessary
functionality for their applications, the easier it is for Microsoft to
get them to use even more new extensions of the middleware
functionality. By mitigating the clear distinctions between operating
system, office suite, an Internet software, Microsoft encourages vendors
to allow Microsoft to provide greater and greater amounts of
functionality, making the application developers ultimately even more
tied to the monopoly. Middleware can't threaten a Win32 monopoly as
long as MS keeps adding more lock-in mechanisms (which don't provide
simple interoperability with non-MS systems) which they then make
attractive to application developers, often by providing them with up to
millions of dollars in added incentives to use these features.
>> >What does DR-DOS have to do with anything? In any event, Caldera has
>> >dropped their suit against MS, and as such it cannot be used as an
>example.
>>
>> Caldera won their suit against MS, and I don't know why you think that
>> has anything to do with whether the DR-DOS AARD code cannot be used as
>> an example of anti-competitive behavior.
>
>No, Caldera did not win their lawsuit against MS. The trial never happened.
>You can't win a court case that never occured.
Oh, so MS folded, and managed to work around any threat which success in
the claims might provide in preventing MS from forestalling Java
development on Windows, is that what you're saying? Let me check my
sources. Perhaps Sun simply realized that MS had already been foiled,
having to use a third party Java machine.
[...]
>> You're still dissembling wildly.
>
>Try saying something that you can back up, much less make sense of.
Everything I say is backed up, and AFAIK you're the only one with any
trouble comprehending it.
[...]
>> Lots of it didn't work very well because of monkey business by MS.
>
>Microsoft had a vested interest in seeing Win95 succeed. They needed to
>help payoff their investment in Win32. The only way for that to succeed was
>to have 3rd party apps that worked as well as possible. That's what the
>wide beta releases were for, and that's why MS went to so much trouble to
>make Win95 so backwards compatible with Win 3.1 and DOS.
So you presume there's no anti-competitive value in making third party
applications less successful than Microsoft's own on the platform
they've successfully monopolized 90% of PCs with, is that it? How
utterly stupidly naive of you.
>> >Those developers could have ported their apps to NT years before, and then
>> >only needed minor modifications to make work under 95. They chose not to
>> >though.
>>
>> LOL.
>
>That's what MS did with Office. They had 32 bit ports for NT almost a year
>before Win95 hit the streets.
Whadayaknow, huh? Aren't those MS boys the bright ones, eh?
--
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: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why should anyone prefer Linux to Win2k on the DeskTop
Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2000 21:58:04 -0500
Todd wrote:
> heh... well, you have to pay for your *own* software and upgrades.
>
> "I can only show you the door. You are the one who has to walk through."
Do I take it that you're suggesting a bank heist, and offering to drive the
getaway car?
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "James Stutts" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Grad school in TX Was:(Re: [OT] Bush v. Gore on taxes (was: Re: Would a
M$ Voluntary Split))
Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:01:39 -0500
"Eric Bennett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8rbfs4$fl2$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <8rbets$tcj$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "James Stutts"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 2) RAs (of which I was one) get the research done.
>
> So do grad students...
An RA (Research vs Teaching Assistant) is a grad student. Better stipend
and perhaps
worse hours. ;)
>
> > Again, if it were a livable wage, people wouldn't have as much
enthusiasm
> > to finish their thesis.
>
> ...which is why every once in awhile you'll hear comments about a few
> professors apparently trying to delay their grad students' receipt of
> degree for no good reason (I mean cases where even other professors on a
Yep. There are also cases of students wanting to stay on in the
comfortable, if low
paying, environment of college. That's where the "there's no tenure in grad
school" joke
comes from.
> student's thesis committee think the student is ready to graduate).
> What's the difference between a grad student who gets his degree
> tomorrow and a postdoc who just got his degree yesterday? Salary, not
> experience. Delay the degree and get the same experience for less money.
>
> I don't think this is very common, but there is a potential financial
> motivation for delaying a student.
Yep. Which is why, at least at the MS level, you usually have term limits.
JCS
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
