Linux-Advocacy Digest #174, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 01:13:04 EDT
Contents:
Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity... ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity... ("Bobby D. Bryant")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (GreyCloud)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity...
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 22:00:43 +0600
Osugi Sakae wrote:
> It is easy for someone knowledgable to pretend to be ignorant.
As opposed to the reverse, which we see so often here.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: "Bobby D. Bryant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: I think I've discovered Flatfish's true identity...
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 22:03:39 +0600
Terry Porter wrote:
> True, but what's the point of a knowledgable Linux user pretending to b=
e
> ignorant here ?
Maybe an =FCberzealot trying to make MS supporters look bad?
I have long suspected that some of this is going on here, due to the
absolutely ridiculous stances taken by some of the trolls from time to
time.
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 21:05:46 -0700
"T. Max Devlin" wrote:
>
> Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 23:15:52
> >In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> [...]
> >I don't know what you mean by "after BASIC was trashed" since ROM BASIC
> >was shipped in every IBM PC and IBM XT box. Or are you talking about
> >the MS-BASIC that shipped with every version of DOS?
>
> No, I was referring to the ROM BASIC, and so obviously I would be
> talking about after the XT. That would be the AT, no?
>
> >I wouldn't be that surprised if IBM got a flat fee license for ROM BASIC
> >from Microsoft but I believe IBM always paid a (very low) royalty on
> >each copy of IBM-DOS sold. You have to realize that Bill Gates wanted
> >every contract for Microsoft products to be on some kind of royalty
> >basis and all contracts for products Microsoft bought (QDOS for example)
> >to be on a flat fee basis.
>
> No, he just wanted to monopolize; I doubt he has any strong feelings how
> it's accomplished.
>
> >> >It was so cheap compared to what other OEMs paid for MS-DOS because IBM
> >> >participated in the development of IBM-DOS/MS-DOS from the beginning
> >> >through the development of OS/2 version 1.0.
> >>
> >> Such vague and obviously carefully neutral bullshit terms as
> >> "participated in development" lead me to believe that you are unaware of
> >> what really happened to begin with.
> >
> >Well, since Microsoft's development on DOS 1.0 occurred in the office
> >across the hallway from my office I really do have a better idea than
> >you do how it happened. By "IBM participated in the development of IBM-
> >DOS/MS-DOS from the beginning through the development of OS/2 version
> >1.0" I mean that IBM developers worked on parts of all versions of DOS
> >and OS/2 1.0 while Microsoft developers worked on other parts with daily
> >communication between them to coordinate development. It was completely
> >a joint development effort.
>
> I did not know that. Are you sure they weren't just making sure that
> PC-DOS worked?
>
In the beginning, Bill Gates lied! He told IBM he had an O/S... then
had to hustle like hell to look for who had a DOS for the x86. He
conned Seattle Computer Products for their DOS. That DOS was what we
know of as 1.0! Gates created a desire in IBMs' marketing department of
their Basic, which led from there....
> [...]
> >> Because MS-BASIC was in the PROM, according to the information I have.
> >
> >So what? The ROM BASIC was very limited and only used if you bought a
> >PC without floppy drives or a hard drive and loaded BASIC programs
> >through the built-in cassette tape port. As it turned out, virtually no
> >IBM PCs were ever purchased in this configuration.
>
> Well, it wasn't my strategy; ask Bill Gates why he thought it would
> work.
>
> >> I don't see what this has to do with my comment, though. Are you saying
> >> having to select the cheapest from a list of three entirely unknown
> >> alternatives means that DOS "competed"? You're a pretty incredulous
> >> guy, you know that?
> >
> >Yea, right. No one ever heard of CP/M before it was released for the
> >IBM PC.
>
No one?? I knew of it before the IBM PC... crips BYTE magazine was
filled with CP/M ads every month. Worked primarily with the S-100 bus
computers of that time.
> I used CP/M on the Commodore 128, though that was not "before it was
> released for the IBM PC". Why does that mean it 'competed'? Are you
> saying DOS made CP/M a forgotten memory because of competitive merits?
>
> >And if I remember correctly, the UCSD P-System had a magazine
> >devoted to it prior to 1981. Of the three OSs, IBM-DOS was the only
> >unknown one.
>
> I'm also familiar with an OS called Thoroughbred, which was popular for
> programming PC accounting systems (it included a development environment
> for just that purpose.) Unfortunately, the term 'compete' suffers from
> abstraction error. I say that DOS didn't compete with these, not
> because they were not potential alternatives, but because Microsoft
> attempted to monopolize, not compete. That this coincidentally
> resembles 'competing' is not all that surprising; extortion and
> blackmail are similar in the same way.
>
> --
> T. Max Devlin
> *** The best way to convince another is
> to state your case moderately and
> accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
--
V
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 21:16:06 -0700
The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, T. Max Devlin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote
> on Thu, 03 May 2001 15:03:09 GMT
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> >Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001 23:15:52
> >>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
> > [...]
> >>I don't know what you mean by "after BASIC was trashed" since ROM BASIC
> >>was shipped in every IBM PC and IBM XT box. Or are you talking about
> >>the MS-BASIC that shipped with every version of DOS?
> >
> >No, I was referring to the ROM BASIC, and so obviously I would be
> >talking about after the XT. That would be the AT, no?
>
> The original PC had a ROM basic, IIRC. At some point -- probably
> early in the 386 period -- it got dumped, presumably because no
> one cared about it any longer.
>
IBM dumped the ROMed Basic after the 286 series.
> [rest snipped]
>
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- insert random misquote here
> EAC code #191 3d:00h:40m actually running Linux.
> Life's getting too complicated, even listening to the radio.
--
V
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:38 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:08:24
>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:48 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
>>I'm sure. No, it has not been done in practice; it is impossible in
>>practice to write a program which requires a library that doesn't yet
>>exist in any way.
>
>What can I say? It *is* possible, and I can prove it by example.
What commercial grade product have you produced using this insane
method, then?
>>>I have written programs that work in OSs I never saw, linked to
>>>libraries I have never seen. Because those libraries implement
>>>the same APIs as others I use.
>>
>>That is not in dispute.
>
>Max, I wrote to the API. Those OSs later implemented the API and voil�,
>my apps work with that implementation. because the API is not
>the implementation.
Because that API is implemented by many implementations, and thus is a
proven and standardized API. You did not even approach the point of
testing the issue, which is whether you can do this with an API that
hasn't already been implemented to begin with, AT ALL. It ain't so
easy, I think you must agree. Your point would only *mean* anything in
this argument if it meant your software was not derivative of those
libraries. It is, but of course there are multiple library
implementations, so the real world, me, and the FSF agree that it does
not test the issue, and no infringement has occurred.
Now, if you have the balls and are so sure you're right, violate the GPL
the way we've been discussing, market a commercial product with the
results, and see if the court agrees with you. That's the only
'example' that's going to prove your claim, I'm afraid.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:39 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 21:08:02
>>> It has been done, IN PRACTICE. That you, who has never exercised the
>>> craft claim that what has already been done is impossible, is quite
>>> irritating.
>> I'm sure. No, it has not been done in practice; it is impossible in
>> practice to write a program which requires a library that doesn't yet
>> exist in any way.
>
>For the nth time, this is false.
For the nth+1 time, your contention is flawed.
>The program may not be *functional*,
>but you can definitely write such a program. [...]
Find a non-programmer who calls a random bunch of characters that do not
perform function "a program". Why would you even bother writing a
program that is not functional? Just trying to 'cheat' copyright law,
without actually getting into any trouble?
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:40 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:09:38
>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:55 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:59:37
>>>On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 18:27:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>>>> This mean that I can implement this as a C array, linked list, binary tree,
>>>>>>> hell, I could implement it as a database object, and anyone using this
>>>>>>> wouldn't have a clue how I do it.
>>>>>> Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
>>>>>> not working as expected. Right?
>>>>>
>>>>>Wrong. An API defines access to a service -- and if that service isn't
>>>>>working right, then you go to the provider of that service to get it
>>>>>fixed. The details of implementation aren't important to the user of
>>>>>the API. (In general; there are cases when the implementation may be
>>>>>discussed between supplier and customer, but this has more to do with
>>>>>performance requirements than anything else.)
>>>>
>>>>In the real world, an application program ROUTINELY needs to know more
>>>>about a function than the API documentation itself can provide.
>>>
>>>You know this because of your extensive programming eperience, right?
>>
>>No, I know it because people who have extensive programming experience,
>>who's opinions I trust, and who understand my point correctly, say it is
>>so.
>
>Let's see, we should agree we are wrong because you say other say we are
>wrong?
No, you should recognize you are mistaken because I can provide an
comprehensible and reasonable explanation of your error. But you're
just too insecure and defensive; it scares you so much you won't even
try, and so are forced to insist I am 'clueless' and not making sense,
even though my reasoning is consistent with the current unrefuted legal
position of the FSF.
>>>Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
>>>arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
>>
>>Whichever. I've already told you that you can switch the terms
>>"program" and "library" in the phrase "a program is derivative of the
>>library".
>
>No, I can not, because it makes no sense.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:41 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
12:28:48 -0400;
>On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:59:37
>>> Ok: I *do* have an extensive programming experience, and if such a need
>>> arised, the API needs to be fixed, not the implementation.
>> Whichever. I've already told you that you can switch the terms
>> "program" and "library" in the phrase "a program is derivative of the
>> library".
>
>Neither statement is necessarily true.
Nothing is necessarily anything; a library is not necessarily a library
(it could be an application with an API), and a program is not
necessarily a program (it could be a 'plug in').
But after you get over that and start figuring out how to use language
correctly, you'll find that this doesn't prevent anything from actually
being true.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:42 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:11:10
>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:56 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:57:47
>> [...]
>>>>Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
>>>>not working as expected. Right?
>>>
>>>Removing that need is the whole point of the API.
>>
>>Yes, just like removing the need to come up with an original plot-line
>>is the whole point of many derivative movies.
>>
>>>The API defines how the library must behave. If it doesn't, then
>>>there is a bug and the library is not an implementation of the API.
>>
>>The API has metaphysical Truth, is that what you're saying?
>
>The API has existence. You can print it in a piece of paper.
>
>If a library doesn't do what the APi says, it is not an
>implementation of such API. By definition of "implementation".
Is it possible for there to be a mistake in the API, or would you
metaphysically insist that it must be a mistake in either the
documentation (what's printed on the piece of paper) or the
implementation (the library)? Why is the 'implementation' of an API on
a piece of paper not an implementation, just like the code? If the API
isn't code, how do you print it on a piece of paper?
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:43 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001
>On Thu, 3 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:57:47
>> [...]
>>>> Until, for some reason, they need to understand why their application is
>>>> not working as expected. Right?
>>> Removing that need is the whole point of the API.
>> Yes, just like removing the need to come up with an original plot-line
>> is the whole point of many derivative movies.
>
>No, a better analogy for derivative movies is a comparison with your
>so-called thought process. If I want to program a billing system, one
>of the many things that I will need is a way of comparing dates and
>doing date math. I will use a library that does these things rather
>than write one myself, because I don't have time to write one myself.
Sort of like when you need an identifying characteristic for your hero,
and you give him an accent like Schwartzenegger, because you know that
works. Thus, your character is derivative of Ahnold.
Not having time to write one yourself means you don't have any right to
expect to make money on your efforts, unless you're willing to pay the
person who did write one himself for every copy you generate or cause to
exist. Using other's intellectual property without their permission is,
after all, what copyright infringement is all about. It has nothing to
do with the integrity of any metaphysical substances like 'software'.
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:44 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:12:41
GMT;
>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:56 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 18:55:54
>> [...]
>>>There is no "correct" way to implement an API, there are MANY different
>>>ways to do it.
>>
>>Let's just say that some of those ways MAY work, and some of them WILL
>>work.
>
>If it's an implementation of the API, it will work as the API says.
Nice tautology. I guess you never realized its unfalsifiable, did you?
Unfalsifiable tautologies are worse than useless in this kind of
context.
>Working
>is part of being an implementation of the API.
But somehow it is not a part of being a program? Why is that?
>If it doesn't work as the API requires, it is at best a partial
>implementation.
Would that cast doubt on the existence of the API, or merely its
metaphysical integrity?
--
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: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:45 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:14:08
>On Thu, 03 May 2001 15:02:57 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 2 May 2001 19:41:07
>>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 22:14:29 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>>I may be ruled by them. However this one is not one of them.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, I am forced to declare that statement to be incomprehensible.
>>>>How could you possibly know in which instances you are or are not ruled
>>>>by the concepts in your mind, if you can be ruled by them at all?
>>>
>>>I am ruled by the concepts in my mind. This was not a concept in my mind.
>>
>>I'm afraid it is, Roberto.
>
>It is a concept in your mind.
I am forced to insist it is more than that, because it is, instead, a
scientific fact which you cannot refute through mere rhetoric.
>I only have a concept of my interpretation of
>your expression of that concept. And the concept in my mind can be expressed
>thus: "Max sure has a very wrong concept there".
This is your error: the most max can have is a mistaken concept.
>So, no, I am not subject to this particular concept. I am subject to
>another concept, that says that concept is crap.
I never said anything about which particular concepts, Roberto; you're
just desperately trying to come out on top, no matter how much you have
to misunderstand the exchange to produce that result. You are ruled,
utterly and completely, by the concepts in your mind, and nothing else,
as is every other monkey with a brain. That's the point of having the
brain, you see. But if you'd rather just be a monkey....
--
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,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:47 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 03 May 2001
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > I suppose you could look at it that way, but I don't see
>> > how it's Microsoft's fault that their competitors produce
>> > second rate products. :D
>>
>> DR-DOS was not second rate. It included things susch as disk compression
>> that MS-DOS did not. It also forced Gates to either lower prices or at
>> least not raise them.
>
>DR-DOS only looks good next to MS-DOS. It's junk
>next to Windows.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
Usually, Daniel, it is conventional for a troll to get further into his
message before saying something this incredibly stupid. You should
reserve this kind of thing for what it is best for: a smoke screen, a
method of mis-direction, a way of changing the argument to pretend you
have a point when you've been shown a fool. Just making it an out-right
lie like this might seem tempting, since comparing DR-DOS and Windows is
an automatic abstraction error, since they are not comparable products
in the eyes of the customer. But we're not talking about the eyes of
the novice customer; we're talking about the monopolistic producer. If
DR-DOS was junk compared to Windows, why would MS bother with all the
hassles caused by the AARD code?
>Really. I'm not saying everything MS made was gold. :D
I presume the smiley means you know you're lying.
>> CP/M was not second rate. MS-DOS was a "poor-cousin" clone.
>
>Actually it was. CP/M needed a serious upgrade to make it on
>the IBM PC, because it was written for an earlier CPU that
>only could access 64k of memory.
Ha. DOS needed a serious upgrade to make it on the IBM PC. Version 1.0
(and, to be honest, 2.0, but then again, this could be said of all
versions) was seriously flawed; really complete crap. CP/M, on the
other hand, was a simple, but functional, OS.
>DR-DOS did eventually produce this- it was called
>CP/M-86, I think. But I don't think it was ready when
>IBM tried to cut a deal with them.
>
>> Unix was/is not second rate.
>
>A fine server OS (well, bunch of OSes), but it simply
>doesn't even begin to cut it on the desktop.
The distinction is a myth created by Microsoft to explain why their
products sucked so much. "Its only a desktop; if you need
[performance|reliability|stability|capabilities|scalability|compatibility|interoperability]
then get a server!" Truth is, the idea of a 'server' didn't even exist
until after Novell made millions selling file server software. "The
server" was the PC that ran NetWare. This is a cause of concept-drift
in the technology world; previously the terms 'client' and 'server'
applied to software, not hardware. But PCs are junky little things,
compared to professional Unix systems, so they could not multi-task well
enough. If you ran a server on a PC, that was pretty much all it could
do effectively, and so "the server" became a synonym for a 'host system'
running server processes.
As for "beginning to cut it", PCs have finally evolved to the point
where they can run a decent OS. MS would rather we were all still tied
to monopoly crapware, though, so they spare no expense in restraining
trade.
>Sure, it's better than DOS. What isn't?
Windows, depending on your concept of 'better'. DOS was simpler and
less confusing, which I believe is what "better" is supposed to mean to
the common user.
>> Linux is not second rate.
>
>It's just like Unix.
Thus, it is a powerful, professional-level OS, in comparison to Windows,
which is just monopoly crapware.
>> BeOS wouldnt have been second rate.
>
>I don't know what you mean by this. It
>was emphatically second rate; it might have
>become better given time, but in reality that
>didn't happen.
"Didn't"? I wasn't aware the end of time had already passed; I must
have missed it completely.
>> Lotus 1-2-3 was not second rate.
>
>Well, no, but they stuck to DOS too long-
>and this limited them. Excel was able to do
>things Lotus could not because it could leverage
>Windows techology.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha. Excel was able to "leverage Windows technology"
alright. And Microsoft was able to "leverage OS/2 technologies" to make
sure that Lotus was always behind. I know this will amaze you and the
other trolls and sock puppets, but I'm not responsible for how lame your
understanding of the real world is.
>By the time Lotus came over to Windows,
>they were playing catch up. And Microsoft
>fought them doggedly, as you'd expect.
No, they didn't fight them at all. They just broke the law, again, as
you'd expect, by monopolizing. Once Lotus did get caught up (and
surpassed Excel rather easily, as no real improvements had been made
since Excel 2.0 for the Mac) MS started force-bundling Office.
>> WordPerfect was/is not second rate
>
>A similar story as with Lotus 1-2-3.
No, an identical story; Microsoft acting anti-competitively, and you
apologizing for their criminal avoidance of technical merit.
[...I really wish this were still entertaining enough to be worth
continuing, but Daniel's feigned naivete lost its charm five years ago
when it was first put on the "approved sock puppet methods" list...]
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:47 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 17:39:06
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> > Yes but LyX actually needs one as it produces a file to be converted to
>> > postscript then printed, does it not? Word goes straight to the printer.
>>
>> No it doesn't, Lyx supplies a file name of its own (just tested that).
>
>Does LyX write out the file then convert it (or it gets converted)? One
>step Word doesn't do.
You've tripped over your own rhetoric: you wanted to say this was a step
that Word doesn't need. But you are correct; Word is simply incapable
of doing it.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:48 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Thu, 3 May 2001 17:40:32
+0100;
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >You have to convert to postscript! Oh boy! Insert File in word, and it
>> >does it straight away!
>>
>> No telling what "it" is, of course; Word does really weird things with
>> embedded graphics.
>
>"it" is Word.
Word does Word straight away? Doh!
--
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
******************************
