Linux-Advocacy Digest #333, Volume #33 Tue, 3 Apr 01 22:13:08 EDT
Contents:
Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger! (Bloody Viking)
Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000? (Bill Vermillion)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger! (Bloody Viking)
Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal (Michael Vester)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("Chad Myers")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Isaac)
Re: Windows "speed" ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Windows "speed" ("Ayende Rahien")
Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised ("Zed Mister")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: NT multitasking: some humiliating defeats! :)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 01:16:36 GMT
Said Stephen S. Edwards II in alt.destroy.microsoft on 3 Apr 2001
>T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>: Said Stephen S. Edwards II in alt.destroy.microsoft on 2 Apr 2001
>: >Barry Manilow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>[Stephen sighs, as he must address yet another well-known idiot]
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
>: >: He's my friend you moron. That is more than "I heard". The guy told
>: >: me. Did I see it? No. I don't have to.
>: >
>: >* Stephen takes out his UltimateClueStickOfDeath(tm)...
>: >
>: >*THWACK!*
>: >
>: >He "told" you. Hence, you "heard" it.
>
>: How revoltingly rude. You called it bullshit. THWACK, hence you
>: ultimately are clueless, as he has more information than you do over
>: whether it is true.
>
>His proof was "he heard it from someone else". He
>even admitted that he hadn't seen it done, and
>that he was merely "told" that it was done.
No, *your* proof is that he heard it from someone else. *His* proof is
that he heard it from a source he considers reliable.
>: >: > > : run 110 programs at once on 50 MHZ and 16 MB, without even slowing
>: >: > > : much. Can Win-anything do that? No.
>: >: > >
>: >: > > Again, prove it. Show me a resepctable
>: >: > > source that has actually done this, and
>: >: > > I mean something other than your own
>: >: > > anecdotal supposition.
>: >
>: >: One of my Amiga-using friends told me he did this.
>: >
>: >You did the exact opposite of what I requested.
>: >Can't you read? I asked for a "source" other
>: >than some "friend" of yours.
>
>: Go do it yourself. Is he on your payroll? Give us a single reason why
>: it wouldn't be so, how about that, maybe?
>
>The burden of proof is on the person making the
>claim.
And you are making the claim that his claim is false. Not that it is
not known whether it is false; that's just an argument from ignorance
and not defensible as a claim, even against an unsupported contention.
Now, you can either give the reader some reason to believe that your
claim is true, or you can try to ignore your burden of proof by turning
it into an existential pissing match. Choose the first, and you're a
poster. Choose the second, and you're a troll.
Does that about sum it up for everybody?
>I didn't make the claim... he did.
You made a claim. You can support it or you can't. Whether he can
support the claim on which you based your claim isn't at all the issue.
>He
>has to provide the proof.
"Has to?" He *should* provide evidence (whether it's proof is up to
you) as seems reasonable to support his claim. Only extraordinary
claims require extraordinary evidence. Whether or not he does provide
such evidence, however, only has bearing on whether *you believe* in the
truth of his claim. It does not have any bearing at all, I'm afraid, on
the truth of his claim.
>Of course, explaining
>this to a person such as yourself, who is well-known
>as a trolling wanker, is ultimately useless anyway.
I am not a trolling wanker. I'm an annoying philosopher who
carpet-bombs alt.destroy.microsoft. You post, I'll respond.
[...]
>: >8<SNIP>8
>: >
>: >*sigh* None of that stuff had an explanation in
>: >it whatsoever.
>
>: No, it was not meant to explain why NT is so relatively pathetic at
>: multi-threading. It did, however, show it.
>
>With what? Anti-Microsoft droning? Horse hockey.
Statements which you refuse to believe but which are in no way
unreasonable. You're so full of shit it's leaking out onto your posts.
>: >I didn't ask for more anecdotal
>: >citations.
>
>: No, you asked for evidence. These anecdotal citations are the evidence.
>
>No, hair-brain, they aren't.
Sorry, putz, they are. They may or may not be proof, but they are
evidence.
>Evidence is something
>that I can verify.
One possible method of such verification (very very handy when the
evidence is merely anecdotal) is corroboration.
Raise your hand if you are the victim of a criminal monopoly who refuses
to admit guilt and is run by the richest man in the world, and only use
their software because there's nothing better at any cost.
Look around you (metaphorically) Stephen. There may not be enough hands
raised to convince you that you're unique, there may not be many hands
at all that would agree with such reprehensibly emotional rhetoric.
There certainly aren't enough hands, I'm sure, to convince you that the
point is correct (and thus turn this 'evidence' into 'proof'.)
But to say that there aren't any hands raised (besides mine, obviously),
or not sufficient enough to provide some corroboration, means only that
you've got your head in the sand.
>It is impossible to prove something
>through anecdotal citations.
>In order to prove that
>WindowsNT's threading is substandard to BeOS's, he
>needs to cite a respectable source which has conducted
>the test.
In order to prove to YOU, maybe. Your requirement for "proof" is
arbitrary. He hasn't *proven* it to me, either, but I don't get hung up
on whether evidence is "proof", merely whether its convincing. It would
be nice if he could provide convenient and "true" numbers for either of
us, but frankly I have no reason to believe such numbers exist. Unless
you have some numbers that prove his supposition wrong, then you're just
whining.
I found his evidence convincing enough that your attempts to insist its
all a big fabrication or something are painfully annoying, and an
obvious attempt to wish away the many failures and deficiencies of
monopoly crapware.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 01:05:21 GMT
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:41 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>No, but it would allow Netscape to sue you, if they wanted to. The
>designations of program and library and plug-in are entirely and
>completely immaterial when it comes to software as copyrighted work.
>
Fine. Since the designations are immaterial, explain why Netscape is
not a derivative work of the postulated library or plug-in even though
it can link to it. Then tell me why the same explanation doesn't apply
to the other linking situations we've discussed.
Unlike everyone else who might want to play this game, you don't get
to use the helpful fact that Netscape was written before the library
or plug-in was written.
In short, how do you decide which party can sue and which can't?
Isaac
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger!
Date: 4 Apr 2001 01:23:45 GMT
GreyCloud ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: No,... I don't think so. You see, with every release of windows, the
: user has to keep upgrading to a newer system to maintain the same
: response. With the Pentium IV, which is turning into a space heater, it
: will run XP just fine.... but not my wifes' PII @ 233 Mhz. Linux offers
: the end user the opportunity to hang on to their machines a lot longer
: and go a lot easier on the wallet. I introduced my wife to CDE (Common
I recognised this very problem a long time ago, long before CPUs became foot
warmers with the dissipated heat. I like knowing the machine I buy today will
last for years to come with Linux on it. I will be buying a used laptop from a
corporate "garage sale", surely surplus from the upgrade-go-round, but will
get it for $75. And I'll be putting Linux on it. Maybe no X, but it will run
Linux.
: Desktop Environment) and she liked it a lot better than the Win98se that
: she has now. The tide is slowly turning as the common people that buy
: off the shelf ready to run computers to find that things worked one way
: yesterday and now things are working differently today.
The upgrade-go-round is old hat. What's "new" is escalating prices for the
Winblows software.
: Or, the very frustrated user, putting up with lock-ups or BSODS. The
: end user will start viewing this as something akin to a "Lemon". They
: will eventually start trying alternatives to get away from these
: frustrations. I'm not including NT or W2K in this list as you don't see
: these pre-loaded at any of our local stores, but maybe in large cities.
Corporations are leading the way in looking for alternatives for servers now,
becuse of chronic BSODs. And in my case as a commoner who uses Linux, I have
distinct memories of lockups with 95 and 3.11. You'd be doing something and it
would randomly lock up with a GPF or some such crap. I always loved the
"general protection failt at <insert hex here>" message. Very user-UNfriendly!
Windows is about as stable as a balancing bowl full of water.
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: comp.unix.advocacy,alt.solaris.x86,comp.unix.solaris
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bill Vermillion)
Subject: Re: Is StarOffice 5.2 "compatible" w/MS Office 97/2000?
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 00:59:10 GMT
In article <9abepu$2vl$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Logan Shaw <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Pete Mullins <pmullin@> wrote:
>>Since everyone uses Word, this can usually be taken for granted.
>
>No, it can't. Some people who can't be assumed to use Word:
>
> * people who have no need for a word processor, didn't get Word
> bundled with the computer, and aren't going to go spend hundreds of
> dollars to buy it just to read someone's e-mail attachment.
>
> * people who prefer some other word processor.
>
> * people who use platforms for which Word isn't available (such as
> HP-UX, Tru64, AIX, Solaris, Linux, NetBSD, OpenBSD, FreeBSD, BeOS,
> or PalmOS).
>
> * people who are blind.
>
>Personally, when I receive a Word attachment, I first wonder why the
>sender wants to make software purchasing decisions for me. Then, if
>it's really important, I might try to convert it. Otherwise, I just
>delete it.
You don't need to try to convert it. Just use 'catdoc' from the
ports - as it's name implies it cats Doc files. Don't convert,
just toss the junk away. :-)
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 01:11:01 GMT
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:40 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>If a publishing house hires two authors to create works for hire which
>constitute the first two books of a trilogy because they have purchased
>(in the applicable sense) from another author a book which is the third
>part of a trilogy which he didn't write the first two books for, which
>books are derivative of the other? Does this gedanken experiment have
>any bearing on your metaphysical substances?
>
I believe what you have described is called a collective work and not
a derivative work. Neither is necessarily derivative of the other.
Exerpted from Title 17 of the U.S. Code.
A ''collective work'' is a work, such as a periodical issue,
anthology, or encyclopedia, in which a number of contributions,
constituting separate and independent works in themselves, are
assembled into a collective whole.
Your thought experiment shouldn't have any relevance to any argument
concerning derivative works since you haven't described a situation
involving that concept.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bloody Viking)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Arrrrgh! Hoist the Jolly Roger!
Date: 4 Apr 2001 01:27:24 GMT
GreyCloud ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
: "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
: > Of course...a Microsoft OS that doesn't crash would TRULY be an oddity.
: LOL! Kind of like a talking dog.
Or an honest politician. (an oxymoron like "non-crashing Microsoft OS")
--
FOOD FOR THOUGHT: 100 calories are used up in the course of a mile run.
The USDA guidelines for dietary fibre is equal to one ounce of sawdust.
The liver makes the vast majority of the cholesterol in your bloodstream.
------------------------------
From: Michael Vester <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: More Microsoft security concerns: Wall Street Journal
Date: Tue, 03 Apr 2001 11:33:02 -0700
"Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> GreyCloud wrote:
> >
> > Chad Everett wrote:
> > >
> > > On 2 Apr 2001 18:43:06 -0500, Jon Johanson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > >> "Stephen S. Edwards II" wrote:
> > > >> > Really now. I would also ask how in the hell
> > > >> > you've determined that Microsoft has merely
> > > >> > implemented some 4.4BSD code in order to
> > > >> > get Windows2000. Do you have access to the
> > > >> > WindowsNT v4.0 and v5.0 source trees?
> > > >>
> > > >> the "strings" command finds embedded strings in ANY file, including
> > > >> compiled executables and dll files.
> > > >>
> > > >> "Copyright (C), Regents of the University of California" strings have
> > > >> been found in Mafia$oft's DLL files.
> > > >>
> > > >> Hope that helps.
> > > >
> > > >I don't believe you. How about showing us one?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Hey Everybody! It's Jon! Hi Jon!
> > >
> > > You asked, so here ya go:
> > >
> > > Here are some files from a Windows 2000 Professional system along with
> > > the copyright strings that are contained in them:
> > >
> > > C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\finger.exe
> > > @(#) Copyright (c) 1980 The Regents of the University of California.
> > > C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\nslookup.exe
> > > @(#) Copyright (c) 1985,1989 Regents of the University of California.
> > > C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\rcp.exe
> > > @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
> > > C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\rsh.exe
> > > @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
> > > C:\WINNT\SYSTEM32\FTP.EXE
> > > @(#) Copyright (c) 1983 The Regents of the University of California.
> >
> > I wonder if MS pays royalty for this.
>
> What part of MAFIAsoft do you not understand?
> :-)
Microsoft, the repackagers of 21 year old software. My finger is a mere
10 years old, 4th Berkeley Distribution, July 27, 1991. I don't know why
losedos even has a vintage collection of Unix utilities? Everyone knows
to replace them with share/free/whateverware. Obviously, not the
"innovative" part of losedos.
Since we already know that open source is better than losedos code, Bill
will simply incorporate open source into losedos and lag a few months
behind open source projects. Then Bill will present "new products" based
on incorporated open source code. The Microsoft marketing machine (far
more talented than their development department) will market the hell out
of it. They will make billions.
There is very little we can do about it, Bill has demonstrated that he can
out lawyer the United States government.
Seeing the losedos advocates proudly state official Microsoft doctrine
without any care to our future concerns me. Are they that stupid and
unaware of events that effect all of us? Bill is a Napoleon. He must
dominate all things digital. His business conduct using NDA's and
multi-tired pricing structures to exclude competitors proves how
determined he is. This is very bad. Bill could leave us entrenched in a
hardly usable IT infrastructure for decades. All the great dreams we had
about this technology will be gone. Bill will do the dreaming for us.
>
> >
> > --
> > V
>
> --
> Aaron R. Kulkis
> Unix Systems Engineer
> DNRC Minister of all I survey
> ICQ # 3056642
>
<snip>
Michael Vester
A credible Linux advocate
"The avalanche has started, it is
too late for the pebbles to vote"
Kosh, Vorlon Ambassador to Babylon 5
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 01:26:48 GMT
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:46 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Perhaps if you had more understanding of copyright, you would realize
>how unique and bizarre the application of copyright law to software
>really is. I'm well aware of how and why the FSF's application of
>copyright is for programmers. What I don't understand is how a
>programmer with any experience cannot understand that his skill is
>intuition of engineering principles, not a matter of artistic integrity.
Max, you have no idea what you are talking about. Copyright has been
applied to software for long enough now that it's simply not worthwhile
to entertain arguments that it shouldn't be applied to software.
Quite frankly, if you prefer to argue what the law ought to be rather
than what it is, I'm not particularly interested in continuing the
discussion. I know what the FSF would like the law to be. For me
what is interesting is whether their interpretation is correct.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: "Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 01:27:48 GMT
"J" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:pCsy6.1863$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> That is what licence agreements are for. You read them and then agree to
> them or you don't. My advice don't use the service. As for banning incoming
> mail from M$ that sounds like something they would do.
>
> "Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >
> > ******************************************************
> > By Chuck Mead on Monday April 02 2001 @ 11:55PM EDT
> > http://www.moongroup.com/stories.php?story=01/04/02/0156291
> >
> > Microsoft should be feared and despised!
> > ----------------------------------------
> >
> > After taking the time to read the Microsoft Passport Web Site Terms of Use
> > and Notices I have had a belly full of them. The potential damage they can
> > do with this license is staggering. I encourage everyone to take the time
> to read it,
> > particularly the section entitled "LICENSE TO MICROSOFT". If you've ever
> > had any doubts about the nature of that company reading that section
> should
> > put them to rest for good and all!
> >
> > I don't know how many times I've heard Microsoft described as "evil" by
> > Linux zealots and open source supporters (which I am both) and thought,
> > "They're losing it... Microsoft is just a company!" but now I'm forced
> > to agree with them. This license is heinous, and more, it's frightening
> > because I know that some people won't read it and will lose the rights
> > to their own data/content without knowing. Add that to the fact that
> > the license is clearly attempting to gain the rights to *ALL CONTENT
> > WHICH PASSES OVER ANY SERVICE THEY PROVIDE*. For example... this
> > article could be copied by someone and sent to someone else who uses
> > the hotmail email service. According to the license Microsoft would then
> > own the rights to this article! Unbelieveable you say? Go read it and see
> > for yourself.
> >
> > Most of the time when confronted with things like this I may rage for
> > a while but I usually conclude that there is little that I can do to
> > cause the policy to change so why bother doing anything at all but not
> > this time!
> >
> > Effective with this posting the following blocks are in place against
> > email inbound to MoonGroup.com or any of it's domains. If you truly
> > understand what their license means you will do the same on your mail
> > server.
> >
> > msn.com 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their
> services will be accepted.
> > msn.net 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their
> services will be accepted.
> > microsoft.com 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their
> services will be accepted.
> > microsoft.net 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their
> services will be accepted.
> > hotmail.com 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their
> services will be accepted.
> > hotmail.net 550 Microsoft licenses are unacceptable. No mail from their
> services will be accepted.
> >
> > As this is clearly a pre-cursor of what Microsoft's .Net initative is
> > all about I will be watching very closely to see where it goes. I had
> > thought that SOAP might be something very useful which would help to
> > open them up a bit but after reading this license it's clear to me that
> > all that .Net and Hailstorm are going to be is just another sad example
> > of "embrace and extend".
> >
> > I fear them for what they are doing! I despise them for doing it!
> >
> > Good luck to all of us... we're going to need it!
<sigh> Do you guys ever think for youself?
Do you think that any such terms would ever stand up in court?
Of course not.
Just because it's in a license agreement does not mean it's instantly
law.
-c
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Isaac)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 01:37:08 GMT
On Wed, 04 Apr 2001 00:12:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>You cannot sue an end-user for copyright violation. Unless they're a
>producer, they can't be violating copyright.
Really?
I suggest that if I steal a copy of MS Office and bring it home and use
it that I am all three of a thief, an infringer of copyrights, and an
end-user.
Isaac
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 03:49:24 +0200
"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:Vzsy6.544$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > You *see* what I'm talking about?
>
> Yep... something that has nothing to do with me, apparently ;)
I wasn't talking about *you*.
I was talking about the level of conversation and research on the side of
linux advocates around here.
------------------------------
From: "Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows "speed"
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 03:50:28 +0200
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Tue, 3 Apr 2001 23:39:44
> >"." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:Ulry6.518$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> > You are bashing Windows, right?
> >> > At least do so *intelegently*!
> >>
> >> intelligently, perhaps?
> >
> >I've have the excuse of english being a second language (well, forth
> >language, actually).
> >
> >> Anyway, how am I not being intelligent? I would really love to know
how
> >you
> >> think not looking up every flaw in Windows (fuck, there's a task) to
post
> >to
> >> a newsgroup is not being intelligent.
> >>
> >> To put it another way, what did I say that was blatantly stupid?
> >
> >Take the SpecWeb99 we had a while ago (not you an me, the whole
*.advocary
> >groups)
> >There has been a lot of points about 3% difference on identical machines,
> >remember?
> >And all this time, *no one* brought this numbers:
> >
> >http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2001q1/web99-20010122-00096.asc
> >http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2001q1/web99-20010117-00093.asc
> >(IIS5, dual CPU, 1117 & 1159)
> >
> >http://www.spec.org/osg/web99/results/res2001q1/web99-20010122-00095.asc
> >(Tux 2.0, once CPU, 1438)
> >
> >You *see* what I'm talking about?
>
> Look, dude, we only have so much time. You're blaming *us* because we
> can't keep up with the outrageous amount of evidence condemning both
> Microsoft and their sock puppet supporters? We provide sufficient
> evidence; the Specweb troll (a real favorite for Chad, though Erik
> didn't shy away from it, IIRC) was beaten to a pulp, even without these
> particular results.
If you visited the SpecWeb site's, you could hardly avoid those results.
And if you don't have time, what the *hell* are you doing on an advocary
group.
If you are going to have a hobby, at least invest some time in it.
------------------------------
From: "Zed Mister" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft should be feared and despised
Date: Wed, 04 Apr 2001 02:04:58 GMT
Even if it did stand up in court, which is highly doubtful, there are ways
of protecting content that is actually important to the user. Furthermore,
Microsoft would be in deep shit if they actually tried to exercise this
so-called 'right' in a court of law, if not with the courts themselves,
definitely with the public who hears about the court proceedings.
Now let's say that I have a highly sensitive and unsubmitted patent document
that I want to work on in collaboration with a partner. Let's say for the
sake of argument he has a hotmail account. I can always encrypt this mail
using a variety of means and send that. He would need to decrypt the
content using my key to successfully view it. If I had to send something to
an individual I do not know, but am afraid they will pass on the
information, I can have them agree to a non-disclosure agreement before
sending the documentation in encrypted form. That's it. You are then
legally covered by the law. Microsoft can't do shit.
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:oMuy6.27156$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> <sigh> Do you guys ever think for youself?
>
> Do you think that any such terms would ever stand up in court?
> Of course not.
>
> Just because it's in a license agreement does not mean it's instantly
> law.
>
> -c
>
>
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
