Linux-Advocacy Digest #177, Volume #34 Fri, 4 May 01 02:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (GreyCloud)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software ("Les Mikesell")
Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS ("Aaron R.
Kulkis")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Alan Cox responds to Mundie ("Adam Warner")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Boot Disk ("A. Smith")
Re: The Text of Craig Mundie's Speech ("Interconnect")
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (Ed Allen)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 05:21:45 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> >
> >> SCO took the open TCP code and rewrote it and then
> >> charged people $500 extra for every machine it was copied to.
> >
> >Were people forced to buy it, or did they choose to because
> >it was worth the cost to them?
>
> That is a meaningless question. It is not the government's intent to
> second-guess consumers, merely to protect them from being ripped off.
It is not meaningless as long as there were other choices, and people
chose this alternative as being the best for them. The GPL would
have denied this choice, taking away the best choice these customers
could find. And it does second-guess consumers by not allowing
them to make this choice themselves.
> Obviously, you do not believe they were ripped off, having to pay
> exorbitant prices for what SCO got for free. I refuse to question your
> ethics, but I must wonder about your comprehension of the situation.
To understand the reason people made the choice to spend $500
you have to be aware of the other choices available at the time.
Look up what it would have cost to outfit a machine with SNA
or DECnet or an OSI based network, or any of the many proprietary
networking systems available at the time. Along with the cost,
the customer would have to consider the fact that these networks
would not interoperate with anything else.
> "What the market will bear" is not a license to steal.
'What the market will bear' is meaningless where competition
is encouraged. Prices often are driven below the cost of
production.
> >> That is profiteering because they depended upon the scarcity of
> >> access to their code to allow them to charge more than would have
> >> been acceptable if they had not kept that code hidden.
> >
> >Do you think SCO is unreasonably wealthy for a company?
>
> A meaningless question. Our intent is not to second-guess SCO's
> actions, merely to observe their reasons.
Claiming they are profiteering based only on a sales price is
second-guessing.
> Apparently, you think they
> were acting reasonably when they charged $500 for what they got for
> free. But there is, indeed, a thing called "profiteering", and whether
> you agree it applies in this instance or not, you are still responsible
> for knowing it is unethical behavior.
I think it is unethical to prohibit any offering in a competitive
atmosphere.
Consumers are smart enough to know when something is overpriced.
They don't need you or me to decide how they are allowed to spend
their money.
> >> They kept anyone else from being able to benefit from code that
> >> was "shared properly" by your definition.
> >
> >In what way did anything they could have done affect anyone's ability
> >to use the base code or buy corresponding products from competitors?
>
> Their customers do not have any ability to use any base code or
> corresponding product; they have SCO, and they want TCP/IP. Are you
> saying that the question of what a reasonable price is should be based
> on how much SCO can "hold them up" for?
No, I am saying a reasonable price is what will be reached when
multiple vendors saturate a market with products. That won't happen
with restrictive licensing on what should be a free code base.
> So Microsoft is justified,
> then, in claiming unlimited and perpetual ownership of all intellectual
> property sent through hotmail, because they can, and they don't
> physically force anyone to use hotmail?
I don't see how that is relevant, but yes, if you agree to those terms
then you have agreed to those terms. Are you asking if my permission
should be necessary for you to make a bad agreement, or what?
> >If you didn't like SCO you did not have to buy anything from them.
>
> How wonderfully naive. I wish I still had that amount of innocence.
SCO was not the only system around. If you don't like something,
don't buy it.
> Perhaps your belief in the rock-solid reality of the law, your
> assumption it has no contradictions or weaknesses or inappropriate
> extensions, is due to your legal background?
The law is not relevant here - we are talking about the ability
of people to decide how to spend their own money, and the
freedom to do so.
> >> That is the kind of abuse that non-GPL code invites.
> >
> >I can't see how people who were able to use that code were abused. They
> >had the choice of buying it or not. Now if it had been a GPL'd code base
> >they wouldn't have had that choice, because the choices likely would not
> >have existed at all.
>
> Begging the question, Les. Rather pathetically, in fact.
Not at all. Note all the other copyright notices as SCO or any other
commercial unix boots up. A GPL'd code base could not possible
be included, even if it would create the best choice for a consumer.
> >> >Yes, that's what I said, you have a fanciful idea that without the
> >> >ability to profiteer, software wouldn't exist. There is no particular
> >> I don't think that he believes that software without profiteering
is
> >> impossible, GPL software shows that.
> >
> >Yes, GPL software of that era showed that it could take 20 years to
> >get an editor and a compiler to work. Or have you forgotten?
>
> Non-GPL software of that era indicates the same result, I think. Unlike
> non-GPL software, the situation exponentially improves with every
> development, with GPL. That is, in fact, the point. Three or five
> years from now, there will be "wizards" who continue to use proprietary
> crapware and wave dead chickens and hope, and "scientists" who use GPL
> code.
Note that everyone uses BSD-based code now. The GPL restrictions
prevent its use in too many situations for it to be so widely embedded.
> >> He just does not want the opportunity to profiteer taken away
> >> because if it can no longer be abused then the software cannot be
> >> used to extort more money from the people being kept ignorant of
> >> the alternatives. Which seems to be what "its not really free"
means.
> >
> >No one is abused by being offered choices from different vendors. They
> >are abused when only one vendor is able to provide products.
>
> Not if it is GPL; they can't be abused then because the situation never
> occurs. Get it?
GPL code cannot be used in many situations. Get it?
> >> >>This is just the most obvious case, but in every case where a
> >> >>working, well-tested reference code base is shared without
> >> >>restrictions everyone involved comes out ahead.
> >> >
> >> Please explain how the people who paid $500 per machine for years
> >> to SCO were benefitting from the open reference implementation ?
> >
> >Did it work? Did it interoperate correctly with other vendors' products?
> >Did it cost less that an equally well tested version without the
reference
> >code would have?
>
> Why the hell does it matter if it costs less, if SCO is bilking their
> customers for $500 a pop?
Look up the price of SNA, DECnet or the proprietary alternatives.
> >> Obviously they recouped their development costs quickly since they
> >> could rewrite pieces of the reference implementation and test each
> >> against the original code before going on.
> >
> >Are you suggesting that this is some sort of problem?
>
> Guffaw.
Why do you prefer to make it difficult and expensive for someone to
provide what you need?
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Thu, 03 May 2001 22:21:19 -0700
Matthew Gardiner wrote:
>
> > I think that the latest versions of Linux do have this now... Caldera
> > had TT as an option that you had to download along with web-based
> > instructions.
> >
> >> may be next version of X will solve these issues? anyone knows?
> >
> The thing I like with Solaris is that on the highend machines, the graphic
> cards have hardware based anti-aliasing, which is far superior to the
> software solution xfree86 is trying to achieve.
>
> Matthew Gardiner
Thank you... times have indeed changed things. I only hope that Sun
will produce something like this for the Blade 100.
--
V
------------------------------
From: "Les Mikesell" <[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
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 05:25:22 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >>
> >>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.
Don't hire them to do any programming for you. Real programmers
consider the published interface to be a contract between the things
on either side and everything else is allowed to change - and almost
certainly will over time.
> >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".
The GPL does not allow for any non-GPL'd part, making no distinction
about between component types.
Les Mikesell
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.unix.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Just how commercially viable is OSS?... (Was Re: Interesting MS
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 01:31:33 -0400
Stephen Edwards wrote:
>
> "Jan Johanson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:3af1f28f$0$12226$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp
> >
> > An interesting read.
> >
> > ===
> >
> > Slashdot is trying desperately to make this sound bad cause it cuts deep:
> >
> > From Slashdot:
> > "For example, Mundie says forking code is bad. Here's the same thought
> > translated into manager-speak: 'Having multiple vendors competing to offer
> > us the best product at the lowest price is worse than having one vendor
> who
> > can sell the product to us at monopoly prices.'"
> >
> > Now - I don't know about you but up until this moment I've heard that
> > forking code is bad. In fact, I have heard linux believers defend STRONGLY
> > against claims that the linux kernel is forking. And now, just because MS
> > says forking is bad - suddenly forking is good?? It's this sort of
> childish
> > desperate behaviour that is why enterprises don't even consider linux.
>
> What I found particularly interesting was this bit:
>
> ---
> The Internet, for example, was full of sites producing content for free,
> in the hope that somehow they�d generate revenue from sources that never
> materialized, whether it was advertising, subscriptions, or a wing and a
> prayer. As we�ve learned � or really re-learned � one can�t build a business
> or our economic future on that type of flimsy foundation.
> ---
>
> I'm certain Microsoft knew this for quite some time.
>
> A lot of companies/corporations, such as Caldera, S.u.S.E., IBM, SGI,
> RedHat,
> and a host of others are seemingly clinging onto GNU/Linux like a life-
> preserver. SGI's IRIX has lost ground... so has IBM's AIX. Why they
> decided
> to abandon the very commercial nature of their businesses is beyond me. Why
> didn't they simply focus on making products for what WAS and still IS
> selling?... Windows.
Because LoseDOS is a sinking ship.
And the BSA shakedown is making it quite clear how much you LOSE when you
foolishly convert your business to Mafia$oft products.
>
> The sad fact is, that free software was never meant to be commercialized...
> it
> was meant to be shared. Companies basing their existence on a free product,
> in the hopes that they will draw revenue from support contracts simply
> doesn't
> work in the long run. That is what I and others said a while ago. That is
> what
> we are seeing now. I have a feeling that there are going to be a lot more
> dusty has-been cubicles being repossessed/liquidated in the next year or
> two.
>
> Because software such as GNU/Linux, NetBSD, Samba, Apache, etc. are free,
> they
> will always be around. They won't ever go away, because they are so
> accessible.
>
> "Free software never dies... it simply changes maintainers."
>
> However, they also close the gap for what kind of software is needed.
> They close a lot of possible avenues for commercial opportunity. This
> isn't a bad thing, as businesses which are interested in marketing other
> kinds of software/services benefit greatly. However, companies that are
> trying to market GNU/Linux, which can be obtained without any cost, defy
> logic on all levels. And eventually, commercial all GNU/Linux distributors
> will fail... miserably. And GNU/Linux will simply remain as a free product.
>
> Has anyone wondered at all why nobody has tried to market, say, NetBSD?
> It's because anyone who knows enough about it to do so already knows
> that doing so is, to say the least, stupid. It is, to say the most,
> corporate suicide.
> --
> http://www.users.qwest.net/~rakmount/
>
> .------. "The surface of the Earth is the shore of the cosmic ocean.
> |[_] :| From it we have learned most of what we know. Recently, we
> | = -| have waded a little out to sea, enough to dampen our toes,
> | | or at most, wet our ankles. The water seems inviting. The
> | | ocean calls. Some part of our being knows this is from
> |_...._| where we came. We long to return." -- Dr. Carl Sagan
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 01:33:17 -0400
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> On Thu, 3 May 2001 14:46:51 +1200, Matthew Gardiner
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >Do you have ANY IT experience?
> >
> >Matthew Gardiner
>
> You would be amazed if I told you where I was in 1979, but I won't. I
> will say that I was 19yo so at least you have a clue as to how long I
> have been involved in I/T.
For someone who is over 40 years old, you sure are a stupid git.
I know 25-year olds who have more sense than you.
>
> flatfish
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
DNRC Minister of all I survey
ICQ # 3056642
L: This seems to have reduced my spam. Maybe if everyone does it we
can defeat the email search bots. [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
K: Truth in advertising:
Left Wing Extremists Charles Schumer and Donna Shalala,
Black Seperatist Anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan,
Special Interest Sierra Club,
Anarchist Members of the ACLU
Left Wing Corporate Extremist Ted Turner
The Drunken Woman Killer Ted Kennedy
Grass Roots Pro-Gun movement,
J: Other knee_jerk reactionaries: billh, david casey, redc1c4,
The retarded sisters: Raunchy (rauni) and Anencephielle (Enielle),
also known as old hags who've hit the wall....
I: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
H: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
G: Knackos...you're a retard.
F: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
E: Jet is not worthy of the time to compose a response until
her behavior improves.
D: Jet Silverman now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (C) above.
C: Jet Silverman claims to have killfiled me.
B: Jet Silverman plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a
method of sidetracking discussions which are headed in a
direction that she doesn't like.
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
------------------------------
From: "Adam Warner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Alan Cox responds to Mundie
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 17:36:52 +1200
http://www2.usermagnet.com/cox/index.html
'nuff said.
Adam
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 01:55:25 -0400
Rick wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>JS PL wrote:
>>
>> T. Max Devlin wrote in message
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 10:50:53 -0400;
>> >>Aaron R. Kulkis wrote in message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> >>>Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >>>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>>> > Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 1 May 2001
>> 10:11:32 -0400;
>> >>>> > >Since 1993, however, Compaq has not consistently loaded any
>> >>>> > >alternatives to Windows on personal computers it markets to
>> consumers.
>> >>>> Our
>> >>>> > >assessment of consumer preference is that our customers want
Windows
>> >>to
>> >>>> be
>> >>>> > >preinstalled on their computers.
>> >>>> >
>> >>>> > I don't think you understand how damning such testimony is to
>> >>>> > Microsoft's case, JS PL.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> I don't understand, that's for sure. Sure seems like this Compaq
>> >>>> testimony backs up what us MS-shills are saying: People aren't
>> >>>> being "forced" to accept Windows; companies like Compaq
>> >>>> are giving them what they want.
>> >>>
>> >>>Then how come, if I call up Compaq, and ask for a desktop machine
>> >>>with Linux pre-installed, the REFUSE to sell it to me, and when
>> >>>it comes to servers, fi I ask for Linux pre-installed, they will
>> >>>NOT give me a rebate on the Mafia$oft licenses which I am not
>> >>>going to use.
>> >>
>> >>Because no one has the inherint "right" to buy whatever they want.
>> >
>> >Yes we do. We live in a free country; we have the right to buy whatever
>> >we want.
>>
>> I'm sorry kook. Your wrong. You have the right to buy whatever someone
would
>> like to sell. That's all. You don't have the right to buy whatever you
want,
>> that would be the *opposite* of a free country.
>>
>> >There is no reason (save illegal actions known as
>> >'monopolization') that a producer would not then attempt to profit by
>> >selling us whatever we want.
>> >
>> >>It's the same reason
>> >>you can't walk into McDonalds and demand a pizza.
>> >
>> >You're saying McDonalds doesn't want to sell pizza for some reason other
>> >than that they can't make enough money from it to show a profit?
>>
>> No. Their reasons for not selling pizza do not matter. The fact remains
that
>> you have no right whatsoever to go into McDonalds and buy wahtever you
want,
>> including demanding a pizza.
>>
>> > I don't know of any honest businessman who would turn down honest
profit
>> >on principle.
>>
>> Not relevant.
>
>The problem is the vendors are not being allowed to sell whatever they
>want. Some have wanted to sell other OS's but were prevented by
>per-processor or per-system licensing. Now there is the the "bounty" for
>vendors selling bare systems.
That line of shit was debunked ages ago, IN COURT! No vendor has ever been
prevented from selling other OS's installed. Even the DOJ's witnesses affirm
that fact.
At the hieght of per processor licence aggreements only about half of the
OEM's opted for that type of licence, of that half, about 25 OEM's still
shipped other os's on the same proccessor with full agreement of Microsoft.
MS has always strived to provided customers with exactly what they want.
It's 99% of the reason everyone chooses their products.
------------------------------
From: "A. Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Boot Disk
Date: Thu, 3 May 2001 22:36:25 -0700
I just bought an old school machine that I wanted to install mandrake on,
the problem is the machine won't boot from the floppy drive!
How do I get linux to install?
All it has on the hard drive is command.com
That sucks!
Any suggestions....
------------------------------
From: "Interconnect" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: The Text of Craig Mundie's Speech
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 16:10:14 +1000
Dave Martel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Fri, 4 May 2001 11:06:56 +1200, "Adam Warner"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/craig/05-03sharedsource.asp
> >
> >Count the number of times the "GPL" is mentioned: 10.
> >Count the number of times ".NET" is mentioned: 4.
>
> Dont you just HATE Mundies? <g>
>
> >As LWN news states, "One could perhaps be forgiven for concluding that
> >Microsoft is starting to feel a bit of pressure..."
>
> They do sound a little desperate, don't they?
>
Yeah. Desperate to shutdown GPL and *real* open source. Not the quasi open
source MS is talking about.
That article made me sick! How greedy and rapacious can a company be.
Don't you just love the statement "this viral aspect". Like MS just wants to
Grab as much as they can for FREE have all the benefits and NOT allow anyone
else access to their code. If GPL has so many *significant* drawbacks (they
go on to equate OSS with the recent .com bubble) why in the hell is MS even
worrying about it.
Unhealthy forking? Well how about letting the community decide. The biggest
problem that MS has is that users are forking AWAY from Windows.
[QUOTE]---------------------------------------------------------------------
==================================
But there are significant drawbacks to OSS as well.
The OSS development model leads to a strong possibility of unhealthy
"forking" of a code base, resulting in the development of multiple
incompatible versions of programs, weakened interoperability, product
instability, and hindering businesses' ability to strategically plan for the
future. Furthermore, it has inherent security risks and can force
intellectual property into the public domain.
Some of the most successful OSS technology is licensed under the GNU General
Public License or GPL. The GPL mandates that any software that incorporates
source code already licensed under the GPL will itself become subject to the
GPL. When the resulting software product is distributed, its creator must
make the entire source code base freely available to everyone, at no
additional charge. This viral aspect of the GPL poses a threat to the
intellectual property of any organization making use of it. It also
fundamentally undermines the independent commercial software sector because
it effectively makes it impossible to distribute software on a basis where
recipients pay for the product rather than just the cost of distribution
[/QUOTE]--------------------------------------------------------------------
===================================
------------------------------
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ed Allen)
Date: Fri, 04 May 2001 06:00:42 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>Hehe... Microsoft uses large version numbers as a marketing gimmick...
>the bigger the number implying that it is much better. Sort of along
>the same vein as "NEW AND IMPROVED!" I ask what was wrong with the
>older one?
>
But it must not go above 4 because then it might be perceived as
"just more of the same old crap" and that makes "NEW AND IMPROVED!"
harder to sell.
I was surprised they let Word get so high before the rename. They
were probably stressing "incremental improvement" while slipping in
some drastic changes and they hoped to keep people from staying away
from code which would break most of their old stuff.
They seem to have decided that if they use the year in the name then
they can have high numbers and the implied incremental improvement
yet always be "current".
Marketdroids are creaming themselves at the "genius" of it.
Auto manufacturers have been using this "new MS innovation" for at
least eighty years.
--
Linux -- The Unix defragmentation tool.
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <the_win98box_in_the_corner>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Fri, 4 May 2001 02:00:13 -0400
T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 2 May 2001 23:26:29 -0400;
>>T. Max Devlin wrote in message
> [...]
>>>You're saying McDonalds doesn't want to sell pizza for some reason other
>>>than that they can't make enough money from it to show a profit?
>>
>>No. Their reasons for not selling pizza do not matter.
>
>I didn't say it mattered. You're trying to say it doesn't exist.
>Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
>
>>The fact remains that
>>you have no right whatsoever to go into McDonalds and buy wahtever you
want,
>>including demanding a pizza.
>
>Sure you do. Are you on drugs? I can go into McDonalds and demand
>anything I want. I can do it real loud and for a long time, until they
>arrest me for being a public nuisance. And then, from my prison cell, I
>have a RIGHT to send McDonalds letters DEMANDING that they sell pizza.
Until you get the restraining order. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha
>
>And you know what? Nobody in McDonalds is going to claim I'm just
>jealous of Ray Krock's wealth. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-h.
>
>>> I don't know of any honest businessman who would turn down honest profit
>>>on principle.
>>
>>Not relevant.
>
>Guffaw.
>
>You've been spanked, JS PL. I figure you probably missed it, so I
>thought I'd let you know. It wasn't really me that did it, though; you
>kind of spanked yourself on this one.
You need to put down the alcohol now and go to bed.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
