Linux-Advocacy Digest #327, Volume #31 Sun, 7 Jan 01 22:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows 2000 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Why Hatred? (T. Max Devlin)
Re: open source is getting worst with time. (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Uptimes (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:37:05 GMT
Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 07 Jan 2001 05:52:35
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Les Mikesell in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 06 Jan 2001 20:18:06
>> >[...]Even if the 97 CD did contain a filter, I don't
>> >see how that helps the people who have word95 and obviously don't
>> >have a copy of the 97 CD.
>>
>> Well, you can't very well put in on the 95 CD. ;-)
>>
>> And, as Erik is so anal about pointing out, it was available for
>> download.
>
>At some point, but I don't think it was until much later than when
>it was needed. I recall a lot of bad press about this issue.
The 'export filter' for 97 to support 95 format was not available until
months after Word97 was released. Erik keeps trying to confuse the
matter by bringing up the 'import filter' for 95 to support 97, which
was available on the 97 CD and by download when 97 was first released.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Windows 2000
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:37:06 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 7 Jan 2001
[...]
>The "bad press" you are referring to is about a different issue, which was
>saving Word 95 documents from Word 97, not loading Word 97 documents into
>Word 95.
The only issue that anyone, besides yourself, has ever been addressing
is saving 95 documents from 97. You keep bringing up the other issue to
try to discombobulate and confuse the discussion; I imagine that's what
Microsoft's sock-puppet training says is the best approach.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:37:07 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 6 Jan 2001
>"J Sloan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Thanks Alan,
>>
>> I knew I wasn't imagining it
>>
>> Erik, your thoughts?
>
>First, you claimed the NT server crashed 13 times in a year. The article
>says the NT server crashed on average once every 6 weeks over 10 months, not
>a year(that's crashes, not 13) and it was "since January" and the article
>was published on November 1st. Giving standard publishing deadlines for
>weekly magazines, that means the article was probably submitted September
>1st. Even if we give the author credit for having written the article in
>only 1 day, that means that at most the test period was over 9 months or 39
>weeks. 39 / 6 = 6.5. So the server crashed 6 times, not 13.
>
>Second, This took place over 2 years ago. Using NT4 SP3, which was not all
>that stable for some tasks. SP4 was much more stable.
>
>Third, Despite your grossly overexagerated claims, a 45 day uptime is quite
>good for NT4 SP3. Windows 2000 has no such problems.
<*chuckle*> I guess that about what we expected; no, Erik doesn't seem
to have any thoughts. Just excuses and arm-waving.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why Hatred?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:37:12 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 6 Jan 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Not that I agree with that statement at all; I thought we were talking
>> about the OS, not the apps? Because there is no MS-Office for Linux, it
>> is not an acceptable desktop? Any application, though not any
>> particular product, is available on Linux, or could be available if
>> there were any market demand, just as any script for Unix "could" be
>> written on NT.
>
>The point was that all those tools you talk about for Linux are also
>available for NT. Not "similar" tools. The *EXACT SAME ONES*.
But they don't work in the exact same way, since NT is not Unix, and
can't even really pretend very well. So it doesn't *matter* if the
'exact same tools' are available, if they don't provide the same
operational functionality.
>The same cannot be said in reverse.
Of course not. Nor can Unix be called a proprietary pile of monopoly
crapware. You don't seem to understand what this situation says about
the relative match-up between market *demand*, and market *behavior*.
Obviously, there is demand for NT to be more Unix-like, but no demand
for Unix to be more NT-like.
[...]
>> And they were monopolizing with MS-BASIC in microcomputer ROMs the whole
>> time.
>
>No, that didn't happen until 1981. MS was founded in 1975.
So what?
>> >> >If it was a detriment to the consumer, the consumer wouldn't buy the
>> >> >upgrade.
>> >>
>> >> So it is, so it must be. And you wonder why I bring up Microsoft's
>> >> constant efforts to force consumers to upgrade, despite their
>> >> reluctance.
>> >
>> >If they didn't want to do it, they wouldn't.
>>
>> So it is, so it must be. If you didn't "want to" give the guy your
>> wallet, you won't. Whether he "wants to" put a bullet in your head is
>> your problem.
>
>While that's true, it's not the same thing.
Not the same thing, no, but metaphorically identical.
[...]
>> If that were true, it wouldn't make a wit of difference at all. There's
>> nothing in the Sherman Act about "unless...". Monopolizing is illegal,
>> as is attempting to monopolize.
>
>Being a Monopoly is *NOT* illegal, nor is gaining a Monopoly.
All right, just for you, we'll pretend that's right. Monopolizing is
illegal, as is attempting to monopolize. I don't really understand how
you're going to gain or be a monopoly without monopolizing, particularly
when the definition of monopoly is not 'large market share', but 'one
who monopolizes'. So whether 'being a monopoly' is illegal might be
questionable, the fact is that monopolizing is illegal.
Section 2 of the Sherman Act:
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,[...]
[...]
>> If you just happened to "end up" with
>> an overwhelming market share, then its generally a trivial thing to show
>> your competitive efforts and how they resulted in your success, in
>> court. When it turns out that your internal communications all point to
>> intentional anti-competitive efforts, then it puts the lie to your
>> statement. You are entirely mistaken about the source and cause of
>> Microsoft's monopoly. It is a common mistake.
>
>Whether or not MS intended to do as you say is irrelevant to whether or not
>they succeeded BECAUSE of it. They succeeded because their competitors were
>incompentant. The tactics they used should not have worked on any alert
>competitor.
What unmitigated and transparent malarkey.
[...]
>> One cannot tell what the world would be like in an alternate reality.
>> Given the importance of Quicken, I'd dare say that Intuit may well have
>> become a much larger company in a world without Microsoft.
>
>Intuit chose to concentrate on one market. That's their strength. AOL is
>in many markets, and has become a much larger company even since MS started
>competing with them. Your "what if"'s are meangingless. Intuit also writes
>software for the Mac, yet they've not chosen to go into any other markets
>there either.
Yes, my 'what if's are meaningless, since, as I mentioned, there is no
way of knowing whether Intuit would have branched out, or whether AOL
would have become even larger, had Microsoft not broken the law.
[...]
>Both companies hold large percentages of HUGE markets. AOL has something
>like 25 million customers. Intuit, probably the same number (at least).
The number of customers is meaningless; the question is revenue and
profit. Counting customers is for monopolists.
[...]
>But that's just it. The fact that people willingly pay higher prices for
>MS's software when cheaper competition is available says that MS gives them
>something the cheaper competition does not. Something that's important to
>them, or they would buy the cheaper alternative.
Yes, that 'something' is what they would have had already to begin with,
had Microsoft not broken the law. People *do* pay higher prices for
Microsoft, because there is no replacement alternative, cheaper or
otherwise. Whether they are "willingly" paying it; we have only your
unreasonable foot-stomping to suggest that this is so.
[...]
>> >Yet you don't mind making comments about how it's "drivel".
>>
>> Yes, because it is drivel.
>
>It's fact. Commodores management were idiots. Hell, there was a
>shareholder revolt. A number of people went to the shareholder meeting and
>via proxies, tried to get the board to change their practices. They were
>thrown out of the meeting.
I don't even *care*. Hell; Commodore never competed with Microsoft!
>> >> >> >Windows is in fact a reliable, efficient and effective for me.
>[...]
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I noticed the subtle yet glaring ad hoc qualification, there, Erik.
>> >> >> What's up with that?
>> >> >
>> >> >Because it's an opinion about my useage.
>> >>
>> >> Bullshit; its an "escape hatch" to make your opinion unfalsifiable. It
>> >> also makes it meaningless and arbitrary, but you would have to have some
>> >> intellectual integrity to care about that.
>> >
>> >Opinions, by definition, are unfalsifiable. I don't need to qualify one to
>> >make it so.
>>
>> So why did you qualify it? My opinions, by the way are not
>> unfalsifiable. That they are my opinions is fact, but it can still be
>> falsified, and all of my opinions are, by conscious effort, available
>> for revision in the face of evidence.
>
>I didn't qualify it. My statement was intended to give no doubt that it was
>my opinion.
As you pointed out, we already knew it was your opinion. It was a
qualifier; an indication that not only is your opinion private, but the
*truth* of your opinion is private. Nobody can ever show your opinion
to be unreasonable, you figure, if you stick to your guns and tack "for
me" at the end of every statement praising crapware.
>> >If I say, in my opinion, the sky is green. It could very well be from my
>> >perspective (I may have been taught that the color blue is green).
>>
>> Such post-modernist bullshit is neither here nor there. You may have
>> been taught the *wrong word* for that color, but it wouldn't make it the
>> right word; just the word you use. You would be, as always, mistaken.
>
>How can you say that any word is the right or wrong word? Words are
>subjective. The chinese use totally different concepts for words than the
>western socieites.
They use a different language, too, so that makes things quite a bit
easier, in terms of the chinese. Limiting our current consideration to
English, at least, I can say that any word is the "right" word if it is
accurate, consistent, and practical in identifying and communicating the
concept which the speaker or writer intended and provides information to
the listener or reader. I can say that any word is the "wrong" word if
it is not accurate (not precisely what was meant), not consistent (in
conflict with other uses), or not practical (does not communicate
information).
I think I've been through this before, though you may have missed it. I
call it "The Conceptual Model", and its helped me tremendously.
[...]
>> Yes; Linux is internally consistent and standards based, very reliable,
>> and logically, if arcanely, controlled. Windows is not any of these
>> things, except arcanely controlled.
>
>Internally consistent. That's why there's over 100 window managers out
>there.
Indeed. If it were internally inconsistent, it would be very likely
that 100 different window managers would all be able to function.
>It's consistent in that it provides no consistency.
Its consistent in that it is consistent; not in every way which you
might imagine or desire, but in every way which has a need for
consistency. Outside of that, it allows the ultimate in flexibility.
The balance of consistency and flexibility is one of the important
advantages to using a Unix-like operating system.
[...]
>> >You're forgetting the costs of marketing, advertising, distribution,
>> >printing, and a host of other things.
>>
>> And these are more expensive for NT... why?
>
>NT sells far fewer copies of it's OS than 9x. There are fixed costs
>associated with everything, and those are amortized over the number of
>copies you sell, then there are per unit costs as well which are roughly the
>same.
NT doesn't sell copies of 'its OS'. Microsoft sells both NT and WinDOS.
I'm waiting for you to provide some indication that there are fixed
costs associate with one exclusively, or that there are variable costs
that are tracked for one alone. This "they sell more WinDOS so its
cheaper" again flies in the face of the fact that the price hasn't gone
down, regardless of how many they have sold. Either the costs of an OS
are scalable to the number of units sold, in which case the price should
drop over time, or the costs are not treated scalably, in which case
your 'amortizing' is imaginary. Either way, as I've mentioned, NT
pricing is nothing but a scam.
[...]
>> Per-model per-processor licensing agreements are per-processor
>> licensing. Are you suggesting that OEMs pay only once for each model of
>> PC they make with Windows? No, it is each computer they pay for. The
>> rates are set per-processor.
>
>Gee, then why is it that you can buy the same server from Dell with 2000,
>Linux or No OS?
Because, as I've mentioned, on that produce line, Dell has bitten the
bullet and paid a higher price for W2K, so they can provide the choice
of Linux or no OS to their customers. Microsoft must be really worried
about these 'defections', where OEMs are supporting threats to the
monopoly, but they can't do anything about it given the anti-trust
scrutiny. Its kind of fun to watch, except for the fact that I know
some delusional people like yourself aren't aware that this isn't
'competition', but a loosening of the grip of the illegal monopoly,
that's causing this to occur.
>> These rates are negotiated separately for
>> each model line, but they are nevertheless per-processor, and until
>> recently every major OEM had such an agreement for EVERY model line they
>> had. Recently, all the major OEMs have started biting the bullet, and
>> providing Linux. It costs them money, but they know its what the
>> consumers want.
>
>And therefore, they're making money. Imagine that.
Imagine having to pay someone else more money for the "privilege" of
being able to sell your own products the way you want. Imagine.
>> >> They pay less because if MS tried to charge them any more, it
>> >> would break their pre-load lock-in, which is a fundamental support for
>> >> Microsoft's illegal monopoly.
>> >
>> >Oh, so you admit that MS can't raise prices for fear of losing market
>share.
>> >There goes the monopoly theory.
>>
>> That there is a ceiling and a limit to how indefinitely a monopolist can
>> hold prices above competitive levels without adversely reducing their
>> number of sales, does not change the fact that only a monopolist can
>> ever do it at all. So there are still potential market pressures
>> preventing, for instance, MS from charging $3000 for WinDOS and $17,000
>> for W2K. That doesn't in any logical way 'rule out "the monopoly
>> theory"'.
>
>That's patently false. Anyone can control their prices simply by raising or
>lowering the price they sell them for.
This is a common misunderstanding. The producer *sets* their prices,
they do not "control" them. The market "controls" prices. If the
producer sets his prices too high, they won't sell as many units; if
they set them too low, they won't make as much profit on each unit. By
implementing that little-old "supply and demand" mechanism we all
learned about in grade school, the *market* controls prices. By
controlling whether the producer has set them higher or lower than
'competitive levels', the market determines if the price must come down,
or can go up.
[...]
>> Could you provide us with some numbers, indicating that these fixed
>> costs are an appreciable component of the sale price of NT?
>
>They're an appreciable cost of any MS OS development. You don't think they
>make IE versions compatible with NT for free, do you?
I don't think it costs them "an appreciable" amount, and see nothing in
your post to dissuade me of the notion. Please provide numbers,
indicating that it takes ten times as much to make IE compatible with
NT; or any other 'appreciable' amount more than WinDOS.
>> >Something has to pay for new versions of DirectX, Windows Media
>> >Player, etc.. which are all downloadable free even by users of the original
>> >Windows 95.
>>
>> Microsoft's other criminal activities are not my immediate concern. Do
>> these costs accrue specifically to NT for any reason?
>
>They are paid for by OS sales, including NT sales.
The answer is 'no', then.
[...]
>> >Ok, since you have to be so thick headed. You said :
>> >
>> >"Perhaps sufficient users wouldn't agree with you that they'd appreciate
>> >the choice. Perhaps it really does fill you with... discomfort, to
>> >contemplate people learning how to use computers, and being free of
>> >Microsoft and its software and their dependency on paying someone else
>> >to gain value from their own property."
>>
>> I don't understand how you think my proffering possibilities is
>> second-guessing. I don't need to second guess anybody to recognize that
>> Linux is growing greatly in popularity; merely double-checking the Dell,
>> Compaq, and IBM web sites will make that clear. You'll notice that I
>> specifically avoided insisting that this must be *why* this is
>> occurring, but I am allowed to speculate. That's not second-guessing.
>> Second-guessing is saying that Microsoft's competitors are
>> 'incompetent', or that 'users don't want to have to learn anything'.
>
>While linux shipments of OS's keep going out the door, the majority are
>upgrades to existing systems and new *SERVERS*. I think we'll find that
>Linux's growth will peak very soon, until it can start becoming more desktop
>friendly.
I think you're second guessing, already, again. You haven't any way of
knowing or even estimating how many Linux OSes are being implemented in
any specific way. It "started" becoming more 'desktop friendly' about
six years ago! All it lacks now is access to the market, still
restricted by Microsoft's illegal monopoly.
[...]
>> >Try to bring a Television in for repair. It will cost you 3x the cost of a
>> >new TV to fix it.
>>
>> Oddly enough, televisions don't used standardized modular hardware and
>> general purpose software components.
>
>And you think nVidia's hardware is "standardized"?
It fits in a standard PC form factor, using standard PC bus connections,
to provide output to a standard monitor. You tell me; it this or is
this not standardized modular hardware?
>> >The notion that products are disposable is quite common.
>>
>> The notion that a PC is disposable is entirely derived from the
>> Microsoft monopoly.
>
>Not.
Oh, well, if you say "not", then... it must be so.
[...]
>> As far as I know, 90% of a user's actions would be entirely identical in
>> either one. They are just GUIs; pointing and clicking doesn't change
>> that much. An icon is an icon, a menu is a menu, a button is a button.
>
>Which all do different things when clicked on between the systems.
Oh? I don't think there's much difference between clicking on a menu on
Linux and clicking on a menu on Windows. What are you talking about?
(As if I didn't know; you're talking about "since its not Windows its
wrong", the same empty pretense of an argument you've been using all
along to insist that Linux 'can't be' a desktop.)
>> >Consistency means things work the same way all the time.
>>
>> Well, they don't. So I consider consistency to be more related to
>> whether or not you can figure out how they will work, this time.
>> Windows fails this test, utterly, in several ways.
>
>Such as?
Sometimes I click on something and it works, sometimes I click on it and
it doesn't.
Some of the things in the Explorer are files and directories, sometimes
they're one of a variety of types of 'registry mirages'. Sometimes when
I drag a file I get a shortcut, sometimes a copy, and sometimes it
moves. Sometimes I get the common dialogs in Microsoft applications,
sometimes I get Office dialogs. I could go on all week, but I know
you're just going to ignore, hand-wave, or arm-wave all of this away, so
I'll stop before I get to the really esoteric stuff, about how many
levels deep any specific configuration setting might or might not be, in
whatever arbitrary window Microsoft stuffs it....
[...]
>> No, Apple's philosophy is proprietary computers which are all but
>> appliances.
>
>Disposeable. What you claim only exists in MS's domain. You're
>contradicting yourself.
I don't see anything about 'disposable', either in the text I wrote or
in the idea of "Apple's philosophy". And I never claimed it only exists
in "MS's domain"; I said MS is responsible for it in the industry, and
they are.
[...]
>> Well, I would certainly want to avoid any distro that includes bundled
>> apps that have, within the set, unresolved library conflicts. But it
>> does depend on how large the bundle would be, I think. I'm getting the
>> Deluxe RedHat 7.0 package, I'll let you know if there's any library
>> conflicts (though I'm getting it pre-loaded, so I might not be aware of
>> all of them.)
>
>Imagine that. The monopoly hard at work.
Microsoft doesn't make a Linux distro, AFAIK.
[...]
>> >> No, I said it doesn't have the class of problems you were referring to.
>> >> I said that the problems you experience weren't Linux problems, but Erik
>> >> problems.
>> >
>> >Of course. Yet the problems you have with Windows are not Max problems.
>>
>> You are correct, sir. Mostly; some of the problems I have with Windows
>> are "Max problems", in that it is only my style of use which makes them
>> real problems, and to anyone else they would merely be annoyances.
>
>Spoken like a true bigot.
Spoken like a true ad hominem used to avert consideration from the fact
that you've entirely lost the argument.
[...]
>> >That's because an automatic transmission cannot compete with a manual one.
>> >They are two different markets by their designs.
>>
>> Then whether one "outsells" another is entirely irrelevant, and it was
>> rather bogus of you to bring it up, eh?
>
>But they do the same thing. Just like PC and Mac markets are the same, but
>different.
Like I said; whether one 'outsells' another is entirely irrelevant, in
that case.
[...]
>> In fact, those who use manual transmissions don't, either. The point
>> remains, insisting that you can determine what people want by
>> second-guessing how little effort or knowledge it requires is
>> self-serving, and bogus. It is an abrogation of the whole idea of a
>> free market; there is no reason that everyone needs to buy the same
>> thing, nor does monopolization become competition by simply saying it is
>> so.
>
>Of course not, and you are free to buy Linux on many PC's, just like you're
>free to buy Manual transmissions on many cars, but not all cars. Hell, most
>cars don't even offere manual transmissions as an option (that is, the
>majority of models).
Forget the car analogy; you could only make it more absurd.
[...]
>> >BMW prohibits you from installing any car stereo other than a BMW one in
>> >their cars or you warranty is void.
>>
>> Your stereo warranty, maybe.
>
>No, the warranty on the whole car. Your waranty on the entire car is voided
>if you install an non-BMW stereo or even CD changer.
That wouldn't stand up in court for five seconds.
[...]
>> Generally, I expect that it is because it is more efficient to engineer
>> the parts without considering whether they use the same as the
>> competitor's parts, since there aren't isn't really enough efficiency in
>> using no special tools to make the consumer care.
>
>It's more efficient to create special tool than to use existing tools? What
>planet are you from?
One where engineering is not as simple as you seem to assume that it is.
Yes, it is sometimes often more efficient to create special tools. I am
not going to bother second-guessing why any one tool might have been
used in any specific case. It is too subtle and abstract, the
distinction between production efficiency in a free market, and "trying
to lock your competitors out"; you cannot even see the difference, until
you understand what is competitive, and what is anti-competitive,
behavior.
>> >And most people don't change their own oil. Hell, I could change my own oil
>> >but i'd rather pay someone to do it for me. I just don't have time to deal
>> >with the mess.
>>
>> Whatever. Did you miss my point? I guess you must have.
>
>Your point was meaningless.
So you didn't miss it; you just wish it were wrong, but don't have any
way of addressing it. Thanks.
>> >> On the contrary; you seem to expect that knowing the turn signal from
>> >> the accelerator is knowledge only fit for mechanics.
>> >
>> >Not at all. Knowing where your power switch, and how to click a mouse is
>> >equivelant.
>>
>> According to you, but you don't know what you're talking about. I have
>> spent more than a decade teaching people to use computers, and you are
>> mistaken. I should have remembered why I don't get into car analogies.
>
>Because they don't support your argument.
Because they don't reasonably support any argument, but that just makes
them very popular with unreasonable people. A car is not a computer,
and knowing how a computer works is not the equivalent of being a
professional mechanic.
>> >> Only in your rather bogus opinion, or by mistake.
>> >
>> >So you admit that you just lied when you said you don't state things which
>> >are untrue?
>>
>> No. I wasn't even mistaken; I just didn't realize you were trying to
>> play schoolyard games.
>
>So you admit that you've posted false information, under the name of a
>"mistake" and then can't admit to having made one?
OK, kindergarten games.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: open source is getting worst with time.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:37:13 GMT
Said JM in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 07 Jan 2001 18:20:00 +0000;
>On Sun, 07 Jan 2001 01:44:32 GMT, in comp.os.linux.advocacy,
> (T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) wrote:
>
>>>>But..you see, this is a free country. Sellers can use whatever
>>>>measurement system they like. And if it appeals to purchasers,
>>>>great. If it doesn't appeal to consumers, so be it.
>
>>>However, thanks to European dictatorship, it's illegal to sell in
>>>metric.
>
>>Huh, what?
>
>In Britain it's illegal to sell in imperial units.
I thought that's what you meant.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Uptimes
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 02:37:14 GMT
Said J Sloan in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 07 Jan 2001 22:51:31 GMT;
>Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
>
>> First, you claimed the NT server crashed 13 times in a year.
>
>I read a similar article that stated nt crashed 13 times in one year.
>
>I remember that clearly - perhaps there were 2 nt pcs here?
IIRC, the study in question lasted two years, so perhaps you heard the
total number of failures reported?
>If not, then it was another, similar test.
>
>But I can see it goes right over your head - even this link clearly
>states that linux did not crash at all, while windows nt crashed
>a number of times and required an average of 30 minutes each
>incident to bring it back up - did that enter your consciousness?
>
>No, you quibble about figures, and miss the entire point -
Yes, that is the reason for the quibbling. A bit like the patter of a
stage magician, but here applied with less intellectual integrity, to
try to misdirect the argument.
>I rest my case.
[...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
** 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 by posting to comp.os.linux.advocacy.
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
******************************
