Linux-Advocacy Digest #226, Volume #33 Sat, 31 Mar 01 14:13:03 EST
Contents:
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor (Donn Miller)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Formatting a floppy (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux dying (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Mircosoft Tax (T. Max Devlin)
Re: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!> (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:34:48 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001
>Roberto Alsina wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 06:48:19 -0500, Aaron R. Kulkis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >Roberto Alsina wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Chad Everett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 01:03:09 +1000, Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >>On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Gunner � wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On Wed, 28 Mar 2001 01:59:15 -0500, "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>> >> >>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> >> Cuba has dedicated itself to the principle that, within its means, it
>> >> >>> >> will try not to kill any human beings due to lack of food, shelter,
>> >> >>> >> medical care, poor sanitation, etc.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> But they got real good at shooting down Cessnas......
>> >> >>
>> >> >>I wonder what Cuba would be like if Batista and the Mafia still ruled.
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >It would be a lot like Las Vegas, Nevada
>> >>
>> >> Last i checked, Las Vegas Nevada had the mob, but didn't have
>> >>
>> >> a) Batista
>> >> b) A right-wing dictatorship
>> >
>> >I take such labels with a grain of salt.
>> >
>> >According to leftists, anything that isn't as left-wing as themselves
>> >is "right-wing".
>>
>> Under Batista there was no freedom of press, there was no free elections,
>> the politics were of open market and savage capitalism, there was no
>> socialized healthcare.
>
>See, this is why you fail.
>
>Capitalism is *NOT* right wing.
>Neither is an open-market economy.
>
>What you are describing is a free economic market under a non-free state.
Sounds right-wing to me.
>Of course, freedom of any sort is destabilizing, as economic freedom
>breeds the desire for political freedom.
>
>Which is why closet-dictators LOVE Communism, as it removes all
>economic freedom....from everybody...ESPECIALLY "THE MASSES".
Oopsie. You meant "socialism" again. Communism only removes the
political freedom.
>> Are you gonna say Batista was a communist?
>
>Spot the attempt to erect a straw-man.
Is that a yes or a no? :-D
(In case you can't figure it out yourself, we're making fun of you,
Aaron, because you call anyone you disagree with a communist.)
>> >Right-wing has a definition that is more involved than merely
>> >"opposed to left-wing socialist fuck-heads".... "right-wingers"
>> >are actually the ideological cousins of left-wingers....they're
>> >BOTH socialists.
>> >
>> >This is why Stalin told the Communists in Germany to vote for Hitler.
>>
>> Well, Hitler did call himself a socialist.
>
>Thank you for admitting that truth.
>
>Fascism and Communism are two sides of the same coin.
As is Fascism and the Constitution. No tolerance of alternatives,
remember? You've stated that anyone who doesn't completely support the
Constitution is to be shot. Sounds pretty fascist to me.
>> >People who call the various wacko groups like the Ku Klux Klan, Aryan
>> >Nation, and other white supremecist groups 'right wing' are misusing
>> >the term, as these idiots...for all their faults, are *NOT* advocating
>> >any kind of socialism.
>>
>> Of course not. They are right wing loonies, not left wing loonies.
>
>KKK, AN, et. al, are calling for a vertically integrated, socialist
>economy?
>
>Interesting. Could you point us to some position papers where they
>promulgate the economic order of 1930's Germany and Italy, and
>1920's - Present Japan?
>
>Last I checked, most of these groups were ragging on the Japanese
>economic model...which, if you do your homework, has been fascist
>for 80 years now.
OH! You're just too totally clueless. Discussing things with you when
you don't even recognize what any of the words mean is just
embarrassing. Observe:
[...]
>> Well, it's a much better bogeyman than "socialist".
>
>So, what you're saying is that taxing the workers (translation: stealing
>from them under the threat of violence or imprisonment) for the benefit
>of other people is not one of the basic tenets of socialism...and that
>people who advocate such policies are socialists?
Of course not. There are no "taxes" in a socialist economy, nor can you
"steal" from someone what they do not own. Lack of individual ownership
is one of the basic tenets of socialism; people who insist all taxes are
theft are just morons.
>Please provide us with a better term to use for these people.
Paranoid schizophrenic seems to apply most of the time.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 13:37:33 -0500
From: Donn Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: New worm infests Linux machines/Exposes root backdoor
Chad Myers wrote:
>
> "Karel Jansens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Weren't you in the crowd back then, shouting that Windows 95 did not
> > have DOS underneath? That it was an operating system on its own?
>
> Nope. Although, I will say, however, that Win95 does, in fact, have it's
> VMM and "kernel" in some respects. When Win95 is running, it's essentially
> a different OS. However, the kernel design is horrible and it doesn't
> have very good (if any) process isolation and doesn't restrict processes
> from direct hardware access or switching Rings in the processor which
> is probably the #1 reason why it's so unstable.
Ah, yes - Windows sometimes uses VxD's in Ring 0. One of the major
reasons Wine doesn't work a lot of times.
====== 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: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:39:45 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
[...]
>>>Engaging in a pattern of anti-competitive behavior to gain and hold
>>>the monopoly *is*.
>>
>>And since there *is no other way to have a monopoly* in a free-market
>>capitalist economy, having a monopoly is evidence of monopolization, and
>>is therefore unlawful, if not illegal. This is the reason Congress did
>>not outlaw "patterns of anti-competitive behavior to gain or hold a
>>monopoly", but simply "monopolization *and attempts to monopolize*"
>>(emphasis added).
>
>A couple of dumb questions:
>
>[1] If one assumes that diseconomies of scale don't exist (yes, I know
> that's a bit far-fetched), then one can easily show that one will
> eventually get a monopoly, as it's the cheapest method to make
> the product with no diseconomies of scale. This is not to say
> that Microsoft is in this situation, though, especially considering
> the breadth of their product offerings, which include the almost-
> useless "BOB" to the consumer-level WinME/WinXP to the
> industrial-grade Win2000 server platforms and Microsoft Office.
> (At least, they'd like us to believe it's industrial-grade.... :-) )
That seems a rather far-fetched (in fact, well disproved) theory. Free
markets do not "eventually get a monopoly", nor is a single supplier the
most efficient method of production.
>[2] What's the difference between "illegal" and "unlawful"? Perhaps I'm
> of a naive, non-lawyerly mindset, but I'm curious. :-)
Something is "illegal" when it is specifically stated in the law, and
"unlawful" when it is still not. For example, "monopolization" is
illegal. "Anti-competitive business strategies", which are, in fact but
not in name, monopolization, is merely unlawful. Generally speaking,
"illegal" means it is prevented by law, while "unlawful" means it is not
supported by law.
--
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,misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:39:47 GMT
Said Mathew in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 31 Mar 2001 07:25:25 +1000;
>On Fri, 30 Mar 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
[...]
>> Having a monopoly is not illegal.
>>
>> Engaging in a pattern of anti-competitive behavior to gain and hold
>> the monopoly *is*.
>
>Numerous monopolies work on this premise.
Only if you completely misconstrue the term "monopoly", as Aaron does.
As I responded before, there is no way other than anti-competitive
behavior to gain or hold a monopoly. Do you see what that does to the
logical premise? How can doing something not be illegal if the only way
of accomplishing that thing is illegal?
--
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: Formatting a floppy
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:39:48 GMT
Said Barry Manilow in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 30 Mar 2001 17:24:56
>"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>>
>Format a floppy. Start a few downloads. Open up Office. Play an
>MP3. Encode another MP3. Open up 3 separate videos and start playing
>all of them. Start a couple of chess games. Render some graphics in
>the background. Open Excel and calc a spreadsheet. Open up Word and
>start typing in your word processor. Open up a full-screen session of
>Doom and minimize it. Scan an 120 MB image on high-resolution. Start
>up your emailer and download your email. Burn a CD.
On a WinDOS box? I thought we were testing floppy formatting, not
trying to crash the thing.
>Start doing all of these things on Windows anything, adding one at a
>time. Any bets on when it starts sputtering, slowing down to the
>point of uselessness, or totally locking up and crashing? U think
>that scan is gonna look good? U think that MP3 will be smooth. U
>think u can type full-speed in the WP. What do you think those videos
>will look and sound like? U think u won't burn a coaster in your CD
>drive? U think u will be able to play any of those games at all? You
>are wrong.
>
>Or try this. Open up more than 260 programs all at once and run them
>and work on them at the same time on an ordinary PC system. U think
>Win-anything can do this?
You've misconstrued my argument, and overstated your case.
--
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.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Linux dying
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:39:49 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 30 Mar
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
[...]
>>>>> Let's see, getting real time flight information, being able to notify
>>>>> my loved ones 30 minutes before I land so that they can come pick me up,
>>>>> being instant messaged when I'm outbid on an auction, getting real-time
>>>>> customer support chat with an American Express customer support
>>>>> representative...
>>>>> nah, that doesn't benefit the consumers at all!
>>>>
>>>>Psssssssst... Mr Myers... all that technology is already in place and
>>>>available, today!
>>>
>>><Windows_advocate>
>>>
>>>Exactly, because .NET is being deployed even as we speak. :-)
>>>
>>></Windows_advocate>
>>>
>>>>Sheesh... next you'll be jumping up and down with excitement over the
>>>>combustion engine.
>>>
>>>That's going to run .NET, too. It'll have to; the credit card company
>>>will undoubtedly want to know what kinds of fuel are compatible with
>>>it so that the gas pump will automatically select the correct one,
>>>a form of just-in-time fuel refinement. If the credit is low,
>>>one won't get gas. :-)
>>>
>>>The police will also be interested, should the car be reported stolen.
>>>The .NET server on the engine will immediately disable the vehicle and
>>>the built-in GPS system will of course report the car's location for
>>>rescue and/or apprehension.
>>>
>>>.NET will be useful in a lot of other places, as well. For example,
>>>Nielsen will want to know what TV shows are being watched, for proper
>>>compensation of advertisers. Or perhaps advertisers can be immediately
>>>notified that person A is watching TV show B, and target their pitches
>>>automatically. .NET-aware cameras can be fed into automatic computers
>>>which can detect whether a person is authorized to perform a certain
>>>action, such as entering a building or a vehicle. (Yes, people will
>>>be wearing .NET-aware cell phones.)
>>>
>>>.NET. Building Tomorrow's Big Brother Today.
>>>
>>>[.sigsnip]
>>
>>Awe. Admiration, and awe.
>
>Well, admittedly, all of this is extremely fanciful, :-)
>and not dependent on .NET technology specifically. But judging
>from some of Microsoft's other attempts at various things related
>to observation and/or monopolization, I worry.
Its not anywhere near as fanciful as what MS is claiming for .NET to
begin with. :-)
--
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.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:39:50 GMT
Said Andy Walker in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 30 Mar 2001 19:24:52
[...]
>Let's face it, just about every so called innovation from Microsoft has been
>stolen from somewhere, the WIMP system from Xerox for starters.
No, the starters were long before that. First they "innovated" BASIC,
then they "innovated" CP/M. They didn't "innovate" the GUI until years
later, and then it was mostly lifted from Apple.
>They haven't got a single original concept in their entire bodies, their
>motto must be "buy, borrow or steal". The only new concept Microsoft have
>introduced is the acceptability of unfinished and buggy code!
You know, every producer is actually like this; they might, if they're
lucky, come up with one single real "innovation" in their entire
history. The rest is just the normal development of technology.
It just becomes a lot more obvious when you're dealing with a monopoly.
[...]
--
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.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:39:51 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 31 Mar 2001 08:24:46
>On 27 Mar 2001 18:22:19 GMT, Perry Pip wrote:
>>On 27 Mar 2001 07:32:17 GMT,
>>Donovan Rebbechi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>On 26 Mar 2001 21:08:28 GMT, Perry Pip wrote:
>
>>>Did it get "proven" ? What do you mean by "proof" anyway ? This is not a
>>>criminal case, which substantially lowers the standards regarding what
>>>constitutes "proof", (actually it's not necessary for the plaintiff to "prove"
>>>anything to win a civil suit). And the decisions were made unilaterally by
>>>Jackson. The legal system allows for a due process and peer review that has
>>>not as yet run its course.
>>
>>Until it's reversed on appeal, it's legally factual. And even so, you
>>certainly can't call it in your words 'unsubstantiated nonsense'
>>considering it's the evidence based on MS's own internal documents.
>
>The "unsubstantiated nonsense" remark was in response to a fairly sloppy
>argument. (namely hardware is getting cheaper therefore WIndows should also)
The argument was "as production of a commodity increases, the price
decreases". It has nothing to do with hardware, and nothing to do with
Windows.
>I suppose there may be some evidence to point to this, I have
>not followed the case that closely, and I've yet to hear a convincing
>argument. (and no, Max ignorantly quacking econ 101 slogans does not
>convince me at all)
Studied ignorance will get you nowhere.
>>IMHO you've used a considerable amount of sloppy reasoning yourself,
>>including your stereotyping of people, which only makes reasonable
>>people sceptical of you.
>
>Stereotyping ? Not at all. I didn't call you a ranting zealot. I did
>allude to the idea that you may be willing to accept or endorse fairly
>weak claims against MS. For example, you claimed that MS Office and
>V Studio were also "overpriced", and I pointed out that the competing
>commercial products (Corel, Borland) are more or less equally overpriced.
And due to your epistemological failure, you are incapable of
understanding that they can, in fact, all be equally overpriced.
Because you deny that the competitive market sets prices for commodities
which is most efficient; you prefer the moralistic but false idea that
the producer sets the prices for commodities which is most profitable.
Thus, as Microsoft anti-competetively impacts the app or tool market
(which they cannot avoid doing, so long as they have a monopoly market
share on the OS on which these programs run and do not take steps to
ensure fair competition), the ability for Corel or Borland to set their
prices in comparison to market prices, in order to achieve their desired
profits, disappears. Again, the free market does not set the prices
which are most efficient and most profitable (any theory of free market
capitalism requires that the two ultimately converge); the monopolist
does.
>While I don't believe you're a ranting zealot, I don't believe that you'll
>apply the same healthy scepticism to an anti-MS rant as you would to a
>pro-MS rant. Do you believe that you would do so ? I believe the vast
>majority of people don't like to question arguments when they agree with
>the conclusions.
>
>I also suggested that you would have held the same views even if MS had
>gotten off in court. The reason for this assertion was that outcomes of
>litigation rarely change anyones mind about the way they feel about a
>particular case, especially if they have strong feelings (+ or -) about
>a party to the litigation in question. I was not attempting to smear
>you as a "zealot" by saying this, but this is how most people work --
>and I think you will find that the vast majority of people who've debated
>this issue have not changed their opinions based on the outcome of the
>case (and I also doubt this will happen if MS are let off on the appeal)
What a hopeless load of self-contradicting crap. It seems to me you're
squirming, casting aspersions, and proclaiming that while your tight
clutch on your opinion is good, because the arguments against were not
convincing, any contrary opinions are not good, because the arguments
against were not convincing.
And in addition you seem to claim that all laws are perfect, or that no
reasonable person can disagree with the outcome of a legal process.
I suggest you are squirming and arguing for argument's sake.
--
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.linux.sux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Mircosoft Tax
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:39:52 GMT
Said Donovan Rebbechi in alt.destroy.microsoft on 31 Mar 2001 08:07:14
[...]
>However, I don't see a need to descend to arguments like "Windows isn't
>getting cheaper, therefore MS are price fixing", or "Hardware is getting
>cheaper and Windows isn't, therefore Windows is too expensive".
Well, this is the problem. As a mathematician, you are too quick to
call something "an argument", as if it could stand alone as a proof.
There are no such "arguments" in real life _at all_. This is why your
original comment was so flawed; you presumed that these were statements
of argument, when in fact they were simple discourse. Illustrative,
nominally correct, and informative; were you able to identify that they
are not correct, you might then begin to build an argument against them,
if that is your preference. Declaring they are not sufficient rigorous
an argument to require refutation is to admit you haven't any refutation
because you don't actually understand the "argument", which is not
declared to be in any way concise. Not that you stated what *was* said
correctly, above, anyway.
--
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: German armed forces ban MS software <gloat!>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sat, 31 Mar 2001 18:39:53 GMT
Said Paul 'Z' Ewande� in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sat, 31 Mar 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
><SNIP> Some stuff </SNIP>
>
>> Bah; just admit your argument is weak. Whether its an advocacy forum
>
>People here made the unqualified assertion that Windows can't do it, not in
>their experience/opinion, they stated it as fact, wether you have the
>intellectual honesty to acknowledge this or not doesn't change that.
You may have noticed that I corrected people several times on this
matter. You have made the assertion that any qualification of the
statement must be unqualified (that there can be no qualification which
is disallowed by reason, if any are allowed by reason), and that is a
very flawed argument. You've conducted yourself well enough, I think,
that it is not a matter of intellectual dishonesty. I think that, like
Donovan on the "MS software is overpriced" discussion, you just jumped
the gun, and would like to pretend that you've dismantled any opposition
through pure logic, which is not a rational nor a reasonable way to act.
>I said I've seen Win9x to Win2k format a floppy and do someting at the same
>time with no problem and other systems struggle like mad. *You* agreed with
>that [remember agreeing with my weak argument ?]. People in
>comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips had the same experience as me and gave a
>hardware explanation for this.
>
>What's your's by the way ?
Sometimes WinDOS has trouble. Therefore "WinDOS has trouble".
Sometimes WinDOS doesn't have trouble. But still "WinDOS has trouble".
It is a matter of being bigoted or anything; it is simply avoidance of a
"category error". You are switching back and forth between "Windows"
labeling only one computer's OS, and "Windows" labeling many computer's
OSes. When you presume that the "Windows" which had trouble is all
instances, rather than the class, or that the class must always extend
to all instances to be considered "Windows' fault", you commit a
category error. When I say 'Even though Windows does not always have
trouble, it has trouble," I think you can see there is no category
error.
>> makes no difference.
>
>Sure does. If you expect to throw blanket statement and get away with you
>are either deluded, or worse beneath the other posters worth.
>
><MAX> Because I said so ! </MAX>
Apparently, you must recognize how weak your argument is.
[...]
>> No, they'd have said "that's not true" because it is *never* true. See
>
>Well I counter their Windows can't format a floppy and chew gum at the same
>time because it's not *always* true, you agreed on that, remember. BTW,
>evidence that's it's never true ? Because you said so ?
No, because the laws of physics say so, and it can be verified to be
true in practice. There really is a *BIG* difference between open and
closed source, you know, that has little or nothing to do with actual
licensing.
>And moreover, why would they bother doing so, there are not the defensive
>type, you said it your self.
No, actually, I didn't. I said that you were the defensive type. As
for whether your "Windows sometimes has trouble" refuting "Windows has
trouble", I've already explained that that's unsupportable, as it's
based on a category error being introduced into your concept "Windows".
>> the point? And by "never" of course, I mean, in the absolute, not the
>
>I like it how you are able to jump from a rhetorical to an absolute sense
>when it suits your "debating" needs. How do you figure the difference in the
>post ? Do you read the mind of the poster ? I ask for entertainement
>purposes only.
I presume that the author's intent was to communicate a rational
thought. The rest is easy.
>> rhetorical sense. Linux, you see, is not capable of "sometimes" not
>
>Ha ha ha ! Good one ! Please point your browser there:
>
>http://www.google.com/search?hl=fr&safe=off&q=%2BLinux+%2B%22problem+with+a+
>floppy%22&btnG=Recherche+Google&lr=
>
>I believe that those people are imagining things. After all Linux is not
>capable of sometimes not working, Max said so.
I believe you are imagining things, and these people have not yet
discovered what entirely deterministic and predictable behavior results
in whatever problem they are having.
In theory, it is similarly correct to consider Windows deterministic and
predictable, because it cannot work counter to the laws of physics.
Unfortunately, it is proprietary, and *very* badly designed (and, yes,
we presume that because of the results we see, which include [but are
not categorically identical to] the fault being examined), and so in
practice, this is not the case.
>Absolutes, gotta love them, so easy to shoot down.
>
>> working, like proprietary monopoly crapware.
>
>So much for a point stated accurately and moderately.You keep desecrating a
>product and yet I'm supposed to be the prejudiced one. Am i the only one
>enjoying the irony ? :)
When on when will I find someone on Usenet smart enough to understand
Mr. Franklin's words?
--
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
******************************
