Linux-Advocacy Digest #217, Volume #32 Thu, 15 Feb 01 17:13:05 EST
Contents:
Re: KDE Whiners ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (Robert Surenko)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Tim Hanson)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation (Tim Hanson)
Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else (S P Arif Sahari Wibowo)
Re: Peformance Test (Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?=)
Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Interesting article (T. Max Devlin)
Re: You're not just Whistler, XP! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: KDE Whiners
Date: 15 Feb 2001 20:48:37 GMT
Matthias Warkus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It was the Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:36:16 -0500...
> ...and Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > > which is naturally a lot worse than, say, the KKK
>> >
>> > Fortunately they're largely ignored or ridiculed. Most are breeding
>> > themselves out of existance by marrying first cousins. Kind of like the
>> > European Royal Families only they live in trailers and seldom bathe.
>>
>> Come to think of it...European Royal Families weren't known for
>> the best bathing habits, either.
> At the heyday of baroque absolutism, the nobility didn't bathe at all
> because it was supposed to be unhealthy. It's also noteworthy that
> most trailers feature better sanitation that your typical 17th century
> castle. Versailles, for example, had zero toilets, for lack of a moat
> <g>. The usual way of dealing with your bodily functions was just
> sitting down somewhere in a corner and letting the personnel take care
> of the residue.
Not for the royal and rich, actually. At versailles (as with almost every
other really big house built all over the world in those days) there were
indoor-ish facilities which amounted to a narrow room, usually on the outside
wall, with a floor that didnt quite connect to said wall...leaving a slot
a foot or two wide. Piss and shit would fall down the slot and into the
foundation of the building, to rot away into the ground naturally. Chimenys
were built into these rooms (the same kind of slot, only in the ceiling) to
carry the odor away from the building.
=====.
------------------------------
From: Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:51:09 GMT
In comp.os.linux.misc Peter T. Breuer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Then, to your mind the blind should not believe in light, nor the
>> deaf ins sound?
> They have good evidence for the existence of light. They can perform
> experiments to verify its existence. For example, they can get two
> seeing friends to stand 100 yards apart. They can whisper to one
> and ask him to raise a handkerchief, or drop it to the ground. They can
> then walk the 100 yards to the other friend, and ask him if they
> had whispered the command to raise or drop to the other friend. Repeat
> to taste.
> Then try it when the two friends are separated by a tall building.
How does he know that all his friends are not really voices in his
head?
> That is a truism. The "goedel fact" that every suficiently powerful
> reasoning system contains a truth that is impossible to prove in
> that system is easy to show. It's just one of the fixpoint theorems.
Very true, however, I've always liked the word "just".
When used that way it implies that the subject of the sentence is
unimportant. I always remove the word "just" and re-read the sentence.
So I see, "It's one of the fixpoint theorems". Well, that doesn't really
say anything. But points out a good place to apply the scalpel.
What is the difference between a "fixpoint theorem" and a "faith
in a belief"?
> Peter
--
=============================================================================
- Bob Surenko [EMAIL PROTECTED]
- http://www.fred.net/surenko/
=============================================================================
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:56:59 GMT
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> Erik Funkenbusch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:96h6sc$oh6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Bob Tennent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> > news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?tag=ltnc
> >>
> >> > Poor Microsoft! They're running to the government to protect their
> > business
> >> > model against those property-stealing anti-American open-sourcers.
> > Boo-hoo-hoo!
> >>
> >> Indeed. With every move by that bloated behemoth, they make themselves
> > look
> >> more and more like spoiled little children.
> >>
> >> Erik? Comments?
>
> > Well, I don't particular agree with his comments in particular, though he
> > does have a partial point. Open Source does threaten commercial software
> > innovation. Why should a company (not just MS) invest millions into R&D
> > when open source peoplewill come along and offer a free version?
>
> EXACTLY. In fact, lets legislate it, just like he wants to do. And since
> he WAS speaking for microsoft; lets make the law that MICROSOFT wants to make:
>
> Lets outlaw open source.
Yeah. In fact, let's outlaw free versions!
>
> > On a side note, why is it that the words of one man are always taken as the
> > official word of MS?
>
> When he speaks to the press as a representative of the company Microsoft.
>
> Press conferencing is a simple concept.
>
> -----.
--
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ()
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:57:10 -0000
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:38:45 GMT, Robert Surenko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In comp.os.linux.misc Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Dan Mercer) writes:
>
>>> Their is certainly a strong element of faith in science. We
>>> accept the existence of that we have no direct knowledge (muons,
>>> for instance) based upon the assurances of people we have no
>>> direct knowledge. Is it really that far a stretch to believe
>>> Christ existed based on the works of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John
>>> than to believe black holes exist.
>
>> science is based upon *repeatability*. that which cannot be repeated
>> is not science.
>
>Science has suggested the therory that specific traits in a species
>make it more successful than others. I suggest that you are of a species
>that is succcesful because it belives things repeatable.
>
>Your belief in "repeatability" is an illusion produced by a hormone
>in your brain. It may or may not "really" be repeatable.
>
>prove it.
>
>Or how about this one...
>
>Little fairies manipulate scientific experiments for their infinite
>amusment and joy. These little fairies are from the 5th dimension
>and feel their greatest acomplishment is that they have faked out the
>humans who now believe that all objects fall at the same rate.
>
>All smart little fairies know that heavy things fall faster.
>
>Prove it.
>
>Or maybe....
>
>We are all asleep in little pods. We are hooked to a virtual reality
>program called the Matrix...
>
>My point is that Science is based on some fudemental principles
>that can not be proven, such as the belief that repeatability
>means something.
The only problem with your tirade is the fact that the
only reason you even exist now is because of such
"religious" beliefs.
[deletia]
>> science is a method. you give a hypothesis. you do an experiment to
>> show that the hypothesis holds. you give people enough information to
>> reconstruct the experiment. if others can reproduce it, you begin to
>> accept the hypothesis may be true. if enough other experiments based
>> on extrapolation of the hypothesis prove to work, then you start to
>> trust it more and more.
>
>And as soon as you completely trust it, someone comes up with an
>experiment that dis-proves it.
>
>Science comes up with stuff that works... but it does not lead to
>truth.
No one with any clue claims that it does. It suffices that
it works remarkably better than following church doctrine.
However, being a process that allows for self-correction at
least holds out the hope that you will progress to something
that more resembles the true nature of the universe.
[deletia]
"truth" is unecessary.
However, those that can abandon the truth of yesterday for
the truth of tomorrow will more likely get to it. If your
faith is wrong, it will always be wrong. The nature of
faith is adverse to improvement.
Personally, this is why I abandoned faith. Those that advocated
it most strongly were actively opposed to any attempt to apply
the intellect to the persuit of enlightenment.
--
Freedom != Anarchy.
Some must be "opressed" in order for their
actions not to oppress the rest of us.
|||
/ | \
------------------------------
From: Tim Hanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:59:02 GMT
Ain't it the truth. The logic of Allchin's argument is a real stretch,
but the release shows they're starting to get worried.
First they ignore you... (you know the rest).
Robert Nicholson wrote:
>
> It must be so great to be Linus and go to bed at night and know all the
> time that Microsoft are getting more scared by the day. That would be my
> Ego wonders of good.
>
> Brian Langenberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Bob Tennent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > : news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?tag=ltnc
> >
> > : Poor Microsoft! They're running to the government to protect their business
> > : model against those property-stealing anti-American open-sourcers. Boo-hoo-hoo!
> >
> > This one's actually quite funny. I like the choice of words:
> >
> > ''I can't imagine something that could be worse than this for the software
> > business and the intellectual-property business.''
> >
> > Notice it doesn't say "nothing could be worse than this for software
> > quality". Nor does it say, "nothing could be worse than this for
> > software users". Undoubtedly a free software movement is bad for
> > Microsoft's upgrade treadmill, but they don't come right out and say it.
> >
> > Microsoft has spent its corporate lifetime convincing people that
> > software is something that should be bought and paid for, so it's
> > not surprising that they would be threatened by a movement so
> > similar to what they displaced all those years ago.
--
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.os.linux.misc
From: S P Arif Sahari Wibowo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: MS to Enforce Registration - or Else
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:00:55 GMT
On 15 Feb 2001, Johan Kullstam wrote:
>science is based upon *repeatability*. that which cannot be repeated
>is not science.
This not accurate. Science is based on *consistency*. A theory need not to
be repeatable to be considered science, but it need to be consistent with
other theory and observations.
For example, the Big Bang theory, obviously not repeatable, but consistent
with existing theory and observation.
In math and logic, there is only 3 state of any statement: consistent /
absolutely true, inconsistent / absolutely false, or unproven.
In natural sciences, a hypothesis will considered a theory when it shown
consistent with some theory and observation. As more observation and
theory come up and tested against that theory, the 'truth' of that theory
become better as it have no inconsistency with those observations and
other theory. Eventually, some observation will come up that will not
consistent to that theory. At that point we will know the limitation /
accuracy of that theory (e.g. Newtonian mechanics). In fact all theory in
natural sciences will have their limitation.
Therefore having an idea of god is not only Ok, but even scientific, as
long as that idea is proven to have no inconsistency with all other
scientific theory and observations. :-)
Thanks for reading.
--
S P Arif Sahari Wibowo
_____ _____ _____ _____
/____ /____/ /____/ /____ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_____/ / / / _____/ http://www.arifsaha.com/
------------------------------
From: Peter =?ISO-8859-1?Q?K=F6hlmann?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Peformance Test
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:01:56 +0100
Todd wrote:
>
> Actually, I use a switch box that let's you connect three PC's up to one
> monitor/keyboard/mouse. It is just a simple 'switch box' - and it works
> great with 2000 (or any other OS for that matter I guess).
>
> -Todd
>
Yeah, those things do wonders to your picture quality if you use
1600X12000 or even 1800X1350, like I do.
But, the image is no more blurred than in a bad TV set, so why bother
Peter
--
Are you sure you REALLY want to read this with Netscape?
[ ] YES Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] NO Go to the Microsoft site and download Internet Explorer
[ ] LOCK UP Crash Windows and soft reboot
[ ] BSOD Crash Windows and hard reboot
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Microsoft says Linux threatens innovation
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 20:29:38 GMT
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 13:22:53 -0600, "Erik Funkenbusch"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:96h6sc$oh6$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Bob Tennent <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>news.cnet.com/investor/news/newsitem/0-9900-1028-4825719-RHAT.html?tag=ltnc
>>
>> > Poor Microsoft! They're running to the government to protect their
>business
>> > model against those property-stealing anti-American open-sourcers.
>Boo-hoo-hoo!
>>
>> Indeed. With every move by that bloated behemoth, they make themselves
>look
>> more and more like spoiled little children.
>>
>> Erik? Comments?
>
>Well, I don't particular agree with his comments in particular, though he
>does have a partial point. Open Source does threaten commercial software
>innovation. Why should a company (not just MS) invest millions into R&D
>when open source peoplewill come along and offer a free version?
>
>On a side note, why is it that the words of one man are always taken as the
>official word of MS? When Jim Clark sent a letter to MS begging them to buy
>Netscape, Barksdale dismissed it as not being an official statement of the
>company, yet he was the president, not just a VP as Alchin is.
>
Nobody in Redmond so much as farts in public without say-so from
billg. Allchin was simply echoing the MS party-line. It's not much
different than Ballmer claiming that Linux was "crummy", but that
"crummy is good enough" for most people. (Obviously true, given the
popularity of Win9x, but I digress....)
This is just another part of Microsoft's accelerating FUD campaign.
It's clear that Microsoft is shitting itself over how popular Linux is
getting. It drives them nuts that there is no company or individual
to attack (or buy out), and no way to undercut the opposition on price
-- it's kinda hard to beat zero! They're whining to the press and to
Congress because they don't know what else to do -- to them, trying to
derail Linux is like trying to nail jello to the wall.
Just my 0.02.
Regards,
quux111
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux fails to deliver on the hype
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:22:31 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 20:43:01
+0000;
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> >I was not gloating over the loss of
>> >30 peoples jobs. I still do not see how that connection was made, and
>> >your explanation sheds no light on it at all.
>>
>> Perhaps you don't understand the idea of passive-aggressive behavior.
>> Do some research. More casually, you might consider the concepts
>> "smarmy", "condescending", and "smart-ass".
>
>Irrelevant.
>
>I do not see anything that I posted as "gloating" over the loss of 30 jobs.
>Your explaination still sheds no light on this one.
I do not see anyone saying that you were "gloating", and your repeated
insistence that you are not sheds no light on that one, either.
--
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:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:22:32 GMT
Said Mike Byrns in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 14 Feb 2001 19:01:36
[...]
>> "The World Wide Web Publishing Service terminated unexpectedly.
>> It has done this 454 time(s). The following corrective action will be
>> taken in 60000 milliseconds: Restart the service.
>
>Sorry Les. It doesn't ever say that. The IIS error strings are documented
>on MSDN. Go look em up.
>BTW, I don't consider Apache to be part of Linux any more than IIS is a part
>of Windows. It's another product.
Well, that's stupid. ISS is part of Microsoft's product line, and its
well known they don't even know what a chinese wall is. It makes no
sense at all to consider ISS separate from Windows in the same way that
Apache is separate from Linux. No sense at all.
>Where is your evidence and documentation
>of Windows NT code and failure?
All around us. Open your eyes, you might see it; keep them closed, and
you sound like an idiot saying it isn't there.
[...]
>And you didn't know IIS was having problems because?
That's the thing. Knowing it has problems, and being able to do
anything about it when the problem is in proprietary code you don't have
access or documentation to is a whole 'nother issue.
>There are the alerter
>and messenger services that must be setup for all production monitoring. If
>you didn't do that then don't complain.
Ah, yes, Mike Byrn's famous "how can it be Microsoft's fault?" spin.
--
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:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:22:33 GMT
Said Mike Byrns in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 03:28:03
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Mike Byrns in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:08:10
>> [...]
>> >I do no such thing. We were talking about comments in code made by
>> >adolescent seeming linux "programmers" that seem to think that bashing a
>> >fine MS implemetation of TCP/IP is worthwhile. I opine that your entire
>> >existance is not worthwhile, based on all your inane rhetoric.
>>
>> Oddly enough, that's just what I was going to say.
>
>I was defending. You folks were bashing. Bashing something you have never
>seen nor do you know anything more than hearsay about.
You were defending monopoly crapware. We were bashing monopoly
crapware. Pretending we don't know anything about how bad Microsoft's
TCP/IP implementation is does not make your defense of a monopoly any
more useful or appropriate.
[...]
>> >The shit is in you bud. Neither you nor him have ever even SEEN the MS
>> >code. I HAVE seen the linux code. I can comment all I want. :-)
>>
>> We don't care how much bullshit you make up; that isn't the point.
>
>Read the post and reply to it rationally or you've lost, idiot.
I have read the post, and replied to it reasonably. "Rational" I leave
for those with less understanding and more timid convictions. You have
lost, by calling me an 'idiot', in the same statement in which you're
pretending to recommend a rational response.
[...]
>> >> And yet Linux is decidedly kicking Microsoft's ass;
>> >
>> >Post some proof to this and I will consider you less of a loser.
>>
>> I don't care what you think, Mike; you're a troll.
>
>I've won then.
Yippee! I bet your mom is proud.
>You folks were bashing an implementation you have never
>seen. You cannot counter that.
What on earth are you talking about? We're bashing Microsoft's TCP/IP
stack; an implementation which I think *everybody* has 'seen', in one
way or the other.
>> >> when the government
>> >> finally ends their illegal behavior, they're really going to be up
>> >> against a wall. Right now they're just really scared, and it is pretty
>> >> cool to watch. ;-)
>> >
>> >Perhaps they, not you, define legality? I don't think that the USGov is
>> >"scared" in any way. Triffled yes.
>>
>> Parsing error:Microsoft is the scared one.
>
>The only one that appears scared is McNealy: "Please don't pardon them
>Dubya! We worked so had using the previous govt as a puppet to our (AOL,
>Sun, Oracle, etc) ends, you can't come along now and spoil it!" :-)
What a massive you are, Mike. Guffaw.
--
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:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:22:35 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 15 Feb
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>Aaron Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>>
>>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>> T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> >Said Mike Byrns in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 12 Feb 2001 08:08:10
>>> > [...]
>>> >>Perhaps they, not you, define legality? I don't think that the USGov is
>>> >>"scared" in any way. Triffled yes.
>>> >
>>> >Parsing error:Microsoft is the scared one.
>>> >
>>> Excuse my butting in here but what is "Triffled" ?
>>
>>very very mildly effected.
>>
> Thanks.
Trifled?
--
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:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Interesting article
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:22:36 GMT
Said David Brown in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 13 Feb 2001 11:19:46
>OK, I see what you are saying. Let me put it another way, describing what
>happened rather than who did what.
>
>When Warp 3 came out, Win311 was the current windows version, but Win95 had
>been promised Real Soon Now. Developers were being strongly encouraged to
>write for Win32s, which would give them some of the extra functionality of
>NT and Win95, but could also run on Win16. Software companies were working
>with beta versions of Win95, and concentrating on getting their software
>ready for when it came out. For some reason (a mixture of monopoly-backed
>bullying, solid strategy and tactics from MS (mainting a monopoly is not
>quite as easy as you make out), and poor handling from IBM), commercial
>companies continued to develope for a system that was a year away rather
>than for a better system available there and then. A great many planned to
>first get the Win95 version working, then make an OS/2 version of the
>programs, but after waiting so long for Win95 to arrive, and seeing the
>market share of OS/2, then it just was not worth it.
I appreciate the effort to do less second-guessin, David, I really do;
thanks. And, of course, most of what you say is quite true. But, I
have to point out that maintaining a monopoly is MUCH easier than you
believe. The monopoly-backed bullying and enticements (such enticements
being as illegal as the bullying, in the end, in so much as they were
'monopolization or attempts to monopolize', and all such acts are
equally illegal) are what *caused* the 'misdirection of development'
which you still want to lay on IBM's shoulders, for not "handling".
The emergence of Microsoft and their hype-and-advertising practices did
*not* suddenly make developers base their plans on advertisements. OS/2
was, and still is, the superior product, in so many ways that it is
ludicrous to suggest that it cannot compete. Yet it doesn't. This
isn't due to any failure of IBM marketing, or even caused by the hype
that MS spews. The hype is simply a smoke-screen for the raising and
maintaining of the various barriers which have earned them a conviction
in federal court.
>MS told developers that Win95 would become the major market holder, and they
>believed them.
And you see this as reasoning, while I recognize it for the illegal
exclusion of competition which it is.
>IBM told them that OS/2 was better, easier to program, and
>available now, and many believed them too. But economics dictated that
>commercial companies developed for Win95 [...]
Economics based on monopolization! You don't seem to realize this
resolves to Microsoft's illegal action, again, not any 'strategic
thinking' or lack thereof on anybody's part. Free market economics
don't exist when there is a monopolized market; IBM found out that being
better, easier to program, and available was not enough to make OS/2
*anti-competitive* enough to prevent the monopolization. There is no
validity in treating these occurrences as if "market forces" had
anything to do with it. "Market forces" don't exist when monopoly power
does.
--
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:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: You're not just Whistler, XP!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 21:22:38 GMT
Said Bloody Viking in alt.destroy.microsoft on 13 Feb 2001 05:30:44 GMT;
>
>T. Max Devlin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
>
>: Codenames are arbitrary. In fact, due to some of the trademark issues,
>: you want them to be bad, as well as arbitrary. I think a collision may
>: eventually occur between trademark issues and anti-trust issues simply
>: because codenames are bandied about so readily these days they could
>: effectively turn into pre-announcements, if they are chosen in order to
>: be attractive.
>
>If "whistler" is referring to the pay per view software concept, a much better
>codename for it would be "Operation Foot Bullet".
LOL!
No, "whistler" is now "Windows XP".
>Besides being unattractive a
>codename, it would be accurate albeit an understatement. The pay per view ware
>would be more like shooting yourself in the foot with a nuclear missile. (see
>other thread on details about workings of nukes...)
>
>I guess "whistler" is a lame attempt at hiding the word "whistleblower" as a
>reference to it "whistling" if you dare not pay your tithe. In the other
>"whistler"/".NET" thread I got that exact impression.
You don't seem to have understood what I said about codenames being
arbitrary. They aren't supposed to be derivative of anything. ;-)
--
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
******************************
