Linux-Advocacy Digest #579, Volume #33 Fri, 13 Apr 01 16:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Communism (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (The Ghost In
The Machine)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Toon Moene)
Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day. (The Ghost In
The Machine)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft ("Russell Easterly")
Re: MS and ISP's (T. Max Devlin)
Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant (Alexis Cousein)
Re: MS and ISP's (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Alexis Cousein)
Re: Blame it all on Microsoft (Alexis Cousein)
Re: Why Bill Gates Is Ramming His Thick Meaty Cock Up Torvald's Weak Mincing Ass (T.
Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: Communism
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:44:56 GMT
Said Aaron R. Kulkis in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 12 Apr 2001
19:12:40 -0400;
>billh wrote:
>>
>> "Aaron R. Kulkis"
>>
>> > Max, you're getting dull and repetitive.
>>
>> LOL!!! You are simply an idiotic hypocrite. This from the wannabe that
>> has posted "Tell us again your fairy tale about how the Germans, Japanese,
>> North Koreans, Chinese, Viet Cong, and North Vietnamese never shot at
>> red-cross emblazoned American medical personnel." hundreds of times. You
>> are a riot. LOL!!!
>
>So, Bill,...when you gonna fess up and admit that a lot of our
>medics were deliberately shot at, in violation of the Geneva Convention.
As soon as you can actually provide a shred of evidence beyond your
insistence, possibly. Since that's not going to happen, I think we'd
all appreciate it if you'd stop your stupid trolling, Aaron.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:46:33 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, GreyCloud
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:12:11 -0700
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, silverback
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 15:15:09 GMT
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> >On Wed, 11 Apr 2001 16:22:42 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam A. Kersh)
>> >wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >>I've come to the conclusion based on silverback's posts over the last
>> >>year that he is a closet communist. He touts "welfare" aka
>> >
>> >and yer wrong again fuckhead
>> >
>> >>redistribution of wealth through "progressive taxation." Falsely call
>> >
>> >sorry progressive taxation is not redistribution
>>
>> *Any* taxation of any type is redistribution, if only in the limited
>> sense of distributing money otherwise spendable by the individual
>> receiving it [*] to a government agency which can use it as it wishes,
>> as opposed to the individual spending it as he wishes. Kind of a
>> "guns" versus "butter" issue, in a twisted sort of way.
>>
>> Progressive taxation is merely the increasing of the marginal taxation
>> rate as income increases (the first dollar is not taxed, the first
>> dollar after the exemption limit is taxed at 15%, the last dollar may
>> very well be taxed at 39.6% if one's income is high enough). For
>> another example: the Social Security tax is a regressive tax, as it
>> has a cutoff at about the $66,000 level; any dollars earned above that
>> amount are not subject to the tax.
>>
>> The objective of such taxation is to ensure that those who are
>> "truly needy" (a phrase from the 1980's) are not lost in the shuffle,
>> and that government can continue functioning at the levels we enjoy today.
>>
>> (This may or may not be a good thing, depending. For a historical
>> perspective, IIRC it was a 2% stamp tax which incited the Boston Tea Party.
>> Our current income tax is almost 20 times that amount, at its topmost level.
>> It was also claimed during the passage of Amendment 16 that the
>> income tax would never go above 10% (the original amount was 3%)
>> and no limit was ever put in. Whoops!)
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> [*] not all money received is earned income, especially if the receiver
>> accepts bribes and kickbacks. But even dividend money and
>> interest money is suspect; at most, one has put up capital for
>> someone else (the bank) to use as its wishes, paying the person
>> a fee every so often (the interest) for the privilege of pooling
>> everyone's money in a more central location and making it available
>> for lending; those that borrow, of course, pay interest -- more
>> interest than the individual investors are receiving in their
>> savings accounts.
>>
>> --
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
>> EAC code #191 6d:08h:27m actually running Linux.
>> The EAC doesn't exist, but they're still watching you.
>
>Kind of like cooking frogs... you stick em in cold water and bring the
>heat up real slow. If you throw them in boiling water they'd just jump
>out.
An interesting way of putting it -- and essentially correct.
We've gotten used to it, so we don't jump out -- and we get
our brains boiled.
>
>--
>V
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 7d:23h:38m actually running Linux.
Microsoft. When it absolutely, positively has to act weird.
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:47:06 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 12 Apr 2001 23:16:21 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin"
>
>> What is unsurprising is how far you can be off the mark, and still think
>> you can handle this conversation. An ad hominem attack certainly seemed
>> to fit the bill in announcing how thoroughly your rhetorical ass has
>> been metaphorically kicked.
>
>Provide a source, other than your belief, that killing in war is illegal,
>unethical, and immoral.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA! There is no source for any morality or ethics, other
than belief.
>If you decide to use another butchered text from scripture, I'd first
>suggest you find a source for your claim that, "...God gets to decide who is
>human, and anybody the Isrealites want to kill were simply excluded from the
>definition."
I was merely refuting your sorry-ass attempt to make war something
noble. As for sources for the claim, you can talk to any sociologist,
and I'm sure they could explain to you that this happens all the time,
with any moral belief system which is supposedly fueled by a higher
power.
--
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,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:50:25 GMT
Said Joseph T. Adams in alt.destroy.microsoft on 12 Apr 2001 23:05:57
>In comp.os.linux.advocacy T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>: Said Joseph T. Adams in alt.destroy.microsoft on 12 Apr 2001 09:44:09
>:>In comp.os.linux.advocacy Russianbear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>:>
>:>: Bah - If there is a God he is no better than a common dictator and there is
>:>: NO reason at all to worship him. Anyone who says live by my rules or be
>:>: punished with death or eternal damnation is an asshole.
>:>
>:>
>:>First of all, God has only two main rules, according to Jesus. First
>:>is to love Him. Second is to love your neighbor.
>:>
>:>I don't think those are unreasonable requests.
>
>: Says who? According to God and Jesus (according to those who say
>: 'according to God and Jesus'), there were plenty of other rules, and
>: less reasonable requests.
>
>Those are details. They're there to explain exactly what is meant by
>loving God and loving your neighbor.
Yea, sure. Right. And you know this is true because you define "loving
God and loving your neighbor" as "all of those details". That's a
word-game, not a rational belief.
--
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,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:52:48 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 12 Apr 2001 23:13:23 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin"
>
>> >The truer translation is "You shall not murder". We've been through
>this.
>>
>> I thought it was "you shall not slay." How do you know which it is?
>
>Take your pick. Killing in war is neither illegal, unethical, nor immoral.
Killing another human being is illegal outside of war, so you've merely
changed the word, not the concept; I have never claimed that killing in
war is "illegal". Merely that there is nothing about it being called
"war" that magically makes it either ethical or moral.
>What's more, you introduce the Bible as supporting your point when it has
>been shown that it doesn't. Unless, of course you actually believe what you
>posted earlier, "...because God gets to decide who is human, and anybody the
>Isrealites want to kill were simply excluded from the definition." Have you
>found a source for this claim of yours?
No, I did not introduce the Bible in any way. I refuted your claim that
the change in wording from "Thou shalt not kill" to "Thou shalt no
murder" is simply some metaphoric trick you use to ignore your ethical
and moral responsibility for killing in war.
--
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,us.military.army,soc.singles
Subject: Re: OT: Treason (was Re: Communism)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:55:03 GMT
Said billh in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 12 Apr 2001 23:08:59 GMT;
>
>"T. Max Devlin"
>
>> billh
>
>> >"T. Max Devlin"
>> >
>> >> >Read Exodus and Numbers. God instructed the Israelites to wage war
>and
>> >kill
>> >> >entire populations. The quibble is using one verse from scripture to
>> >state
>> >> >all killing is wrong, when in fact, use of that one verse of scripture
>to
>> >> >support such a position is wrong.
>> >>
>> >> That's my point. God's instructions did not contradict this verse,
>> >> though shalt not murder (kill), because God gets to decide who is
>human,
>> >> and anybody the Isrealites want to kill were simply excluded from the
>> >> definition.
>> >
>> >LOL!!! Incredulous. You truly are clueless.
>>
>> Was that supposed to be a comprehensible argument?
>>
>> >> The "quibble", as it were, is your misconception that this single
>> >> statement is the entirety of the argument for taking an anti-war
>> >> position. It was merely the refutation of a single point of your
>> >> pro-war position. Deal with it.
>> >
>> >No, a true quible is your statement above regarding who is and who isn't
>> >human.
>>
>> Not mine; God's. Or so the people who are killing other humans but
>> somehow not committing "murder" tell us. People have justified slavery
>> the same way. And then, of course, there was.... Hitler.
>
>I quote you from above, "...because God gets to decide who is human,
>and anybody the Isrealites want to kill were simply excluded from the
>definition."
>
>Your source. Care to name some of these *killed non-humans* and provide a
>source?
Obviously, everyone whom the Israelites killed. If they killed nobody,
I am not sure why you claimed that they had. Nevertheless, your claim
that Thou Shalt Not Kill is provided in the Bible or in the faith with
some special "out" which absolves killing in war seems entirely
unsupported.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Toon Moene <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 20:55:18 +0200
Peter da Silva wrote:
> When Dennis Ritchie comes
> to Usenix and uses Windows aids for a talk prepared on Windows,
You mean that dmr gives talks on Windows ? What's his view on Windows
?
[ just to satisfy the comp.theory crowd ].
--
Toon Moene - mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] - phoneto: +31 346 214290
Saturnushof 14, 3738 XG Maartensdijk, The Netherlands
Maintainer, GNU Fortran 77: http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/g77_news.html
Join GNU Fortran 95: http://g95.sourceforge.net/ (under construction)
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (The Ghost In The Machine)
Crossposted-To:
misc.survivalism,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,soc.singles,alt.society.liberalism,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Communism, Communist propagandists in the US...still..to this day.
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 18:59:37 GMT
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, silverback
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote
on Fri, 13 Apr 2001 04:17:37 GMT
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>On Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:25:30 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>(The Ghost In The Machine) wrote:
>
>>In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Aaron R. Kulkis
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote
>>on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 13:35:28 -0400
>><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>>>>
>>>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, silverback
>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>> wrote
>>>> on Wed, 11 Apr 2001 04:10:11 GMT
>>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>> >On Tue, 10 Apr 2001 19:22:56 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Sam A. Kersh)
>>>> >wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>Mathew <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>> Goldhammer wrote:
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > On Mon, 09 Apr 2001 13:33:15 -0400,
>>>> >>>> > Rob Robertson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > > Right. Fascism is characterized by the *state-directed*
>>>> >>>> > > control of the economy,
>>>> >>>> >
>>>> >>>> > Hmm. Sounds like communism.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Precisely.
>>>> >>>>
>>>> >>>> Communism and Fascism are merely different sides of the same coin.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>And Capitalism has state-directed controls on the economy too.
>>>> >>
>>>> >>True capitalism is a laize faire proposition. And the prime rule is
>>>> >>buyer beware.
>>>> >
>>>> >and a totally unworkable system
>>>>
>>>> I will agree on this point, 100% pure capitalism (with no regulation)
>>>
>>>anarchic capitalism, yes.
>>>
>>>Libertarian capitalism, no.
>>
>>Assuming "libertarian" meaning "minimal enforcement to ensure everyone's
>>rights" or some such, I'd have to agree. But that's not lasseiz-faire,
>>as I understand it. (Then again, lasseiz-faire may require a minimal
>>level of enforcement as well, just to ensure no one gets swindled outright.
>>I'd have to dig deep to check this, though.)
>
>
>just remember we tried that bullshit lazy fairy economic bullshit once
>in this country. It ended in a spectular failure called the Great
>Depression.
This is true; there were also issues regarding seniors dying in the
streets, IIRC. Because of Social Security, we rarely hear such stories
anymore.
A perfect example of a mixed economy minimizing a problem, by adjusting
the mix (FDR's programs made the economy more communistic than before).
It would be nice if we could measure the mix -- one crude measurement
would be government spending over non-government spending;
if it gets over 1.0, there's a problem. :-) (Hell, if it gets close
to 1.0, it's a problem.) Other issues, however, include currency
stability and per-capita inflation-adjusted GDP. I'm also not sure how
one would characterize the limits properly; how do we know when we're
too communistic, or too capitalistic? Is it even possible to be too
capitalistic?
"Extremism in the pursuit of liberty is no vice; moderation in the
pursuit of liberty is no virtue." I forget who said that, admittedly.
It would be even nicer if everyone planned for their own retirement. :-)
But that's not always feasible, and, as Robert Burns put it,
"the best laid plans of mice and men aft gang agley".
[rest snipped for brevity]
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
EAC code #191 7d:23h:43m actually running Linux.
It's a conspiracy of one.
------------------------------
Reply-To: "Russell Easterly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: "Russell Easterly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 19:07:22 GMT
I will switch to LINUX when it can reliably run
Windows NT as a sub-process.
Russell
- I want BillG to be my daddy
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS and ISP's
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 19:12:38 GMT
Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 13 Apr 2001 00:22:17 -0400;
>
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said JS PL in alt.destroy.microsoft on Mon, 9 Apr 2001 12:42:54 -0400;
>> [...]
>> >MS holds no "right" to be on all computers, but my power company holds
>the
>> >"right" to be my sole supplier of electricity. That is a true monopoly.
>[...]
>>
>> Sounds more like a true public utility. Tell me, is this "right" that
>> they have something they always have by their nature, or something which
>> is imbued unto them from outside?
>
>It doesn't matter. They are the lawfully granted the right to be the sole
>supplier of electricity.
No, they are not. Not any more than AT&T was lawfully granted a
"monopoly" on phone service. They tried to argue that, in fact, when
the gov't split them up. Their lawyers claimed that they have been
given permission to monopolize, and the judge found this to be a
fallacy. You are making assumptions, JS PL.
>No one else may sell electricity in their area.
I thought you said that no one else could *supply* electricity. Which
is it?
>A
>person who puts up a windmill, or any type of generator may not sell the
>electricity they produce, except back to the monopoly holder in my area. And
>I like the term "sell back" as if it was once and is always theirs. That is
>a true monopoly.
This is regulation of a market which is essential for the welfare of
every member of the society. If the metaphor "sell back" bugs you,
don't use it. But try to get a brain before you continue this yammering
about things you clearly do not understand.
>>I think you're just using the term
>> "right" to mean "whatever I decide it means". Kind of like the way you
>> use the word "monopoly". Why does the government writing regulations
>> making your power company the sole supplier of your electricity confer a
>> "right" to do so? Wouldn't that really be just the "ability", or the
>> "opportunity", rather than the "right"?
>
>Nope. It's the right, not the ability, but it's a nice try on your part
>(not).
And so you can show me some law which provides this "right" to the
electric company. I know you believe that it must be there, to explain
the fact that you don't have the capital to compete with the current
utilities or generators. But, seriously, have you ever had any real
evidence of this "right", outside of your imagination?
>> What is this thing you call "right"? And why should we imagine you have
>> any better idea of what that abstraction pertains to then you do for
>> "monopoly", which you've obviously simply made up an almost random
>> definition for?
>
>mo�nop�o�ly
>n., pl. mo�nop�o�lies.
>
>1.) Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a
>commodity or service.
>2.) Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a
>specified commercial activity to a single party.
>
>A company or group having exclusive control over a commercial activity.
>A commodity or service so controlled.
>
>Source: The American Heritage� Dictionary of the English Language, Third
>Edition
>Copyright � 1996, 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
>Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
>
>Microsoft has neither exclusive control over operating systems or a right
>granted by a government.
Monopoly (Law): the ability to control prices and exclude competition.
I'm afraid your dictionary simply isn't up to the task you set for it.
Such a book is designed for casual, rhetorical usage. Trying to say
that Random House, not the government, determines what is "monopoly" is
silly. The gov't outlawed it by saying "it is a felony to monopolize".
Decades of legal scholars, all of whom make you look like a fourth
grader when it comes to intellectual ability, have examined this fact
and determined how to deal with the issue. You would like to overthrow
all of that with your heartfelt, but naive, opinion. It ain't gonna
happen. It doesn't matter whether you understand how MS broke the law,
in the grand scheme of things. They did, however, break the law.
Case closed; just because you don't understand it doesn't mean I have to
keep explaining it to you.
>No one has or ever had the exclusive control over operating systems.
>At least thats what I would assume considering that this page exists:
> http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Software/Operating_Systems/
Your assumption is brain-dead, and purposefully ambiguous. Is it the
existence, or the purchase, of these OSes that might make them
competition?
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Alexis Cousein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.arch
Subject: Re: IA32, was an advocacy rant
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:11:21 +0200
Nick Maclaren wrote:
> Actually, not quite - at least two of the ones that I have heard imply
> that the same is true for some important codes even with the latest
> and greatest compilers and operating in as near to native mode as the
> architecture allows.
"Latest and greatest" as being the HP compilers, gcc, the SGI Pro64
compilers, or the Intel compilers? gcc (without Pro64 as a back-end)
fares a lot better on x86 than on IA64, if that's what's used to make a
"fair" comparison.
--
Alexis Cousein Senior Systems Engineer
SGI Belgium and Luxemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS and ISP's
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 19:14:59 GMT
Said Se�n � Donnchadha in alt.destroy.microsoft on Fri, 13 Apr 2001
>"JS PL" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > What is this thing you call "right"? And why should we imagine you have
>> > any better idea of what that abstraction pertains to then you do for
>> > "monopoly", which you've obviously simply made up an almost random
>> > definition for?
>>
>> mo�nop�o�ly
>> n., pl. mo�nop�o�lies.
>>
>> 1.) Exclusive control by one group of the means of producing or selling a
>> commodity or service.
>> 2.) Law. A right granted by a government giving exclusive control over a
>> specified commercial activity to a single party.
>>
>
>JS, haven't you learned yet that neither logic, nor dictionary definitions,
>nor popular definitions, nor legal terms, nor anything else will stop idiots
>like Troll M. Devlin from "thinking harder"? The man is a fucking *ZEALOT*,
>which makes him about as capable of rational thought as a canned sardine.
Guffaw.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Alexis Cousein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:16:20 +0200
Chad Everett wrote:
> do with your C++ code the preformance issues end up becoming equal.
The issues are certainly shared, but the abolute performance isn't -- I
have yet to see a Java compiler emit code with an abstraction penalty of
one, but feel free to point me to one.
--
Alexis Cousein Senior Systems Engineer
SGI Belgium and Luxemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: Alexis Cousein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.theory,comp.arch,comp.object
Subject: Re: Blame it all on Microsoft
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 21:18:54 +0200
Brent R wrote:
> Exactly, I wanted to like Linux better than Windows so much but
> apparently MS is the only company that can write a decent browser.
To be honest, I do tend to browse with Opera even while I'm running
this machine under a Microsoft OS.
--
Alexis Cousein Senior Systems Engineer
SGI Belgium and Luxemburg [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: soc.singles,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft,alt.hackers.malicious
Subject: Re: Why Bill Gates Is Ramming His Thick Meaty Cock Up Torvald's Weak Mincing
Ass
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 19:22:35 GMT
Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft on Thu, 12 Apr
2001 22:58:32 GMT;
>In alt.destroy.microsoft, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
>on Thu, 12 Apr 2001 19:02:25 GMT
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>Said The Ghost In The Machine in alt.destroy.microsoft on Wed, 11 Apr
>> [...]
>>>Gates didn't crush Unix. We did.
>>>
>>>All of the buyers of Microsoft products, either directly or indirectly,
>>>established it as the dominant desktop player because of its convenience
>>>with interfacing with other products -- some of them running on DOS.[...]
>>
>>Guffaw.
>>
>>Is this just a little self-recrimination game, or are you truly ignorant
>>of Gates' responsibility for Microsoft's illegal activity, and how that
>>activity resulted in the market behavior you so naively and ingenuously
>>misinterpreted as described above?
>
>One would have thought we could have put up more of a fuss. :-)
Well, you do have a point there. But if you'll forgive me, I put up
quite a fuss. Of course, I also advocated deploying Windows, before I
realized MS monopolized. But I figured the DR-DOS thing was just a
slip, and had no idea that an organization could be so fundamentally
criminal.
>But you're right; it was a combination of factors: the "gee-whiz look
>what Billy's doing now", the sweetheart deals with various hardware
>PC manufacturers, the bugs purposely put in (that AARD code was
>mighty weird) to dissuade DR-DOS from trying to gain a toenailhold,
>never mind a foothold, the outrageous claim that IE is part of the
>OS in order to forestall hardware PC manufacturers from offering
>better alternatives, the outrageous claim that Win95 got rid of DOS,
>the degradation and eventual downfall of Netscape as the dominant
>platform (it might come back, but I'm not hopeful; at least it's
>open source now) because IE was given away for free and
>candied up until it was speedy and everyone drooled over it), the
>absolutely execrable COMMDLG file GUI (horizontal scrollbars? Are
>they CRAZY?!), ActiveX on the Web (and its miserable failure, thank
>goodness, although Java applets aren't doing so well now, either),
>the notion that Microsoft Word files and Excelspreadsheets are the
>perfect way to ship data from point to point via E-mail, the stupid
>VBS viruses (and the even stupider Word and Outlook that allows such
>kiddie stuff; hackers in the past at least had to *work* to find
>exploits), and finally the "99999" campaign (that's less than 6
>minutes a year, folks).
Nice summary.
>I can't say Bill Gates is personally responsible for all this, any
>more than Adolf Hitler or Josef Stalin was responsible for all
>atrocities conducted within their respective regimes. However, they
>might bear general responsibility.
I have enough information on Bill and his actions and attitudes; he is
not so historical a figure as some despot far removed in time and space.
I can say that he, and Palmer, are personally responsible for all of
this, because they personally caused all of this.
>I do wonder, though. Maybe next time we won't be quite so gullible and
>at least look under the hood at the engine? :-)
I'm certainly hoping that the Microsoft issue causes a revival of
anti-trust enforcement, and even an extension of its scope.
--
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
******************************
