Linux-Advocacy Digest #201, Volume #34 Sat, 5 May 01 00:13:02 EDT
Contents:
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: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:40 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 May 2001 14:21:41
>On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:42 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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)?
>
>The API itself can be printed on a piece of paper, not only
>the documentation.
And what is then is "the API itself", but a description of the API?
>An API can not be "wrong" because there is no platonic object
>to compare it to, if you catch my drift.
I am overjoyed to see you are approaching the point where you can
understand me. Thank you for that effort.
My entire point, Roberto, is that there ARE NO platonic objects. You
see? An API cannot be 'wrong' because it is an abstraction which is
inviolate in your mind. You are making it a platonic object, by the
way, and in being unable to compare it to itself without finding
identity and unity, you consider 'the API' cannot be wrong. Does that
make sense?
>An API can not be "wrong" like a rock can not be "wrong".
If someone throws a chunk of concrete into a pile under study by
geologists, they will most surely say that rock is "wrong", don't you
think? Rocks are physical things; APIs are just platonic objects.
>An API can be inadequate, though, and it can not fulfill its purpose.
>
>An implementation of the API can be wrong, because its "platonic object"
>is the API.
There are no platonic objects in this universe, Roberto, and this is the
only universe that exists. I realize how useful it is to create these
platonic objects in our minds (abstractions) because that is, after all,
the nature and value of language. But it is my intent, believe it or
not, to put the nails in the coffin of platonic objects as metaphysical
substances; they are merely lingual constructs, and they can be
understood fully and correctly with that alone.
This is why, of course, I've been repeating the same line over and over
to try to make my point clear concerning GPL and copyright: copyright is
not a metaphysical substance; copyright is book-keeping.
>> Why is the 'implementation' of an API on
>>a piece of paper not an implementation, just like the code?
>
>You seem to have no idea of what an implementation is.
No, I seem to have a need for a more precise idea of what you mean by
'implementation', since the term can equally validly be applied to any
implementation, not just 'the implementation in the formal programming
language that a programmer means when he says "implementation"'. If the
API is an abstraction or a platonic object, then you 'implement' it when
you "write it down", and it doesn't matter how complete the description,
or whether it is in a computer programming language or a natural human
language. You're getting the "importance and precision" of this 'real'
implementation by casting your thoughts ahead to the fact that this one
can be fed into a programmable computer and executed. But that is
because of the limits of the computer, not the form of the
implementation. Some day, we might well have computers that you just
"tell" in far less structured and rigorous ways, how you want them to
work; will you move the definition of "program", "implementation", or
"execute" more, if that should happen? As Les likes to say, the
computer is like a cook, and the program just a recipe. While this
analogy is contra-indicated when considering copyright, it is perfectly
valid for describing the technical relationship between computer and
program. But some cooks need more explicit instructions, and some just
make up the dishes on their own without using 'recipes'.
Now, you would insist, I think, given your platonic mindset, that the
cook has a 'recipe' in his mind, in those cases. This would be
metaphysics, though, you are claiming a recipe "must" exist in this case
simply because recipes do exist in other cases, declaring for no purpose
but your own limited perspective's integrity that cooks always use
recipes, when it can be demonstrably shown this is not the case.
So which is 'the implementation' is quite the same as whether there is
'a recipe'. You're trying to treat abstractions as if they are
concrete. This is the problem with platonic objects, and why it is
useful to remind ourselves that they don't exist to begin with. What
does exist is words: there is a word, 'API'. That doesn't mean there is
a platonic object called an API; it just means there is an abstraction
which is communicative, within a certain context.
Ultimately, the problem addressed by this entire discussion resolves to
one thing: you are trying to use one context of the word "derivative" to
insist that all other contexts must have the same metaphysical
(platonic) properties. This is not the case, and a thing can be
'derivative' in the copyright sense without being 'derivative' in the
programming sense.
>> If the API isn't code, how do you print it on a piece of paper?
>
>"Riding the Iron Rooster" is not code, yet it's printed
>on a (large) piece of paper.
Yes, but it is something else, even if it is not code. I was pointing
out that you need a label for the thing on the paper. You've already
rejected, either explicitly or implicitly, 'API', 'documentation of the
API', 'description of the API', 'implementation of the API', and 'code'.
I just don't know what word you want to use, and I don't think its "song
title", or whatever that iron rooster thing is.
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:42 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001
>On Fri, 4 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 3 May 2001 15:12:41
>>> Maxine:
>>>>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.
>
>It's not a tautology, but an axiom. Axioms are by definition
>unfalsifiable.
So are tautologies. Doh! Your statement is not an axiom, but a
tautology, because it is self-referential. You might consider all
unfalsifiable statements axioms, but your lingual limitations are not
properly my responsibility. IOW, you're mistaken; now fix it, or remain
clueless. I am entirely unconcerned either way, but I would hope that
you'd rather not be clueless.
>>> 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?
>
>Metaphysics not required, fuckup.
I'm afraid they are, unless you can provide me a far more CONCRETE label
for what you keep calling a thing. A partial rock is a rock, not a
partial rock. Why? Because it has no metaphysical integrity. A
partial tree is a branch, not a tree. Why? Because it has no
metaphysical integrity. Yet you want me to believe there can be such a
thing as a 'partial implementation of an API'. Either the
implementation is metaphysical, or the API is, or you're just not
concerned with how incomprehensible your statements are.
BTW, the fact is the last is true, and I am not pointing this out as any
kind of insult. Merely a recognition that your terminology is that of a
programmer, and therefore leaves uninformed about copyright. Other
programmers, you know, have almost precisely the same metaphysical
objects in their mind as you do, so this observation about the nature of
the term 'API' seems like quibbling to you. But this is not because I
want to re-arrange what you or I mean by API. It is because I have no
desire to use the term 'API' at all, as it has no bearing at all on
copyright, and that is the nature of this discussion. It has very
little to do with programming.
Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:43 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 May 2001 14:24:23
>On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:44 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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.
>
>What can I say, if you say a tautology is not true, you are by
>definition wrong.
That doesn't mean there's no difference between a statement that is true
and a statement that is unfalsifiable. At least to a reasonable man,
like me. Whether you are likewise a reasonable man might well resolve
to that point, however. Is everything you believe true to be considered
unfalsifiable, Roberto?
>>>Working
>>>is part of being an implementation of the API.
>>
>>But somehow it is not a part of being a program? Why is that?
>
>Because not all programs are implementations of an API.
The issue is the implementation of the API, not the program. So
programs that don't use libraries don't have to work, in order to be
programs?
>>>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?
>
>The API can't exist or not exist. If it doesn't exist, it is not an API
>and it is not a car.
Did you mean "can exist or not exist"? If so, what signifies this
'existence' in a concrete sense? Does an API simply 'exist' as soon as
someone says it does? It seems likely, since it is an abstraction, not
a thing. Is not being a car sufficient? Then it would always exist,
wouldn't it, since an API is never a car?
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:44 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 4 May 2001 14:38:29
>On Fri, 04 May 2001 04:16:45 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>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.
>
>If you start believing the concepts in your mind are facts, you
>are delusional.
If you're not capable of recognizing the concepts in your minds which
are, in fact, facts, then you are simply stupid.
>>>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.
>
>That is pretty much all you have.
You've proven my point, and decreased the amount of reason any other
person should ascribe to you, Roberto. Take a tip from me: insults are
either incisive, or useless. This one, and the majority of the others
you and Austin and Les have tried to hurl at me, are simply useless.
You'll notice they don't slow me down, and if anything spur me on, so I
don't understand why you guys don't just try to discuss this reasonably,
instead of getting defensive and arrogant every time I disagree with
your perspective.
>>>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;
>
>Actually you did. You mentioned a specific concept, I said it only
>existed in your mind, and that I was not ruled by concepts in your mind.
And I asked what about the concepts in your mind, and you found yourself
trapped. Now you're getting the spanking you deserve.
>That's where this whole subthread started. Check it out through the
>references.
Why? I read the whole thing the first time through. Believe me, your
comments don't get any more reasonable on second, third, or fourth
reading. I know; I've tried.
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:45 GMT
Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 01:55:25 -0400;
[...]
>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.
Apart from your amateurish abstraction error (you are getting hung up on
'prevented'), you are entirely mistaken. In court, it was determined
that this is precisely what occurred. Just because an effect is not
direct does not mean it does not exist, anonymous troll. Microsoft did,
IN FACT, prevent vendors from selling other OSes, using tehir predatory
pricing using cliff's-edge per-processor licensing. Doh!
>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.
25 out of how many hundreds? Just because YOU can get confused by
statistics doesn't mean everyone is as stupid as you are, anonymous
troll.
>MS has always strived to provided customers with exactly what they want.
Oh, Christ! I can't get the "guffaw" to print big enough for that one.
>It's 99% of the reason everyone chooses their products.
Then why are half the OEMs in existence (*ALL* [every one without
exception!] of the top 10 OEMs were ENTIRELY [without a single
exception] covered by PPLs during the period of concern?
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:46 GMT
Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 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
Yea, right. For writing letters? You obviously don't live in the US.
>>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.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. You ought to pick up some alcohol and lie on your
stomach. It will make the spanking sting less. :-D
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:48 GMT
Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 02:14:49 -0400;
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message ...
>>Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 02 May 2001
>>>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>>>> > 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.
>>>
>>>Compaq seems to think that people like you- you know, anti-MS
>>>zealots- are not a big enough a big enough market to be worth servicing.
>>
>>Is that why MS has those ppl lock-in contracts?
>>
>>>It's my opinion that Compaq is probably right about that.
>>
>>So you wouldn't know, is that what you're saying?
>>
>>>But even if they are wrong, their testimony was that they
>>>believed consumers wanted Windows. No?
>>
>>No, "his" testimony was that they couldn't make money unless they sold
>>Windows. That's what happens with monopolization, and why its so
>>closely related to restraint of trade.
>
>No, his testimony was that Compaq sold systems with many different operating
>systems installed, but their home consumer grade customers mostly bought the
>systems with Windows installed.
And his testimony under cross-examination? What was that? Perhaps
explaining how home consumers weren't given the option to begin with?
An admission that, were MS not playing predatory pricing games, they
would offer many more options for home consumers? Do you have the
figures on how many 'home consumer' systems were sold, versus office
desktop machines, during that time period?
You're really going to have to get over this delusion that you can
understand something just by parroting what someone else said, JS PL.
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:50 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > > Self-fulfilling prophecy.
>> > > By the way, signing contract to EXCLUDE other vendors is illegal.
>> >
>> > Nobody is claiming MS did this, you know. Even
>> > you have not, not that I've seen.
>>
>> You are a retard. The per-processor licensing fees ARE restraint
>> of trade, you idiot.
>
>You say that, but you don't say they excluded anyone- nobody
>is saying that.
That's because it is built into the phrase "restraint of trade". How
can you enumerate who was excluded, given the LACK of presence? Am I to
say they 'excluded 3Com from making OSes'? No, they simply engaged in
contracts in restraint of trade. Thus, these contracts excluded
competition. Is English a second language for you?
>> Mafia$oft was found GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!
>
>Nobody has every conviced Microsoft of "per processor
>licensing".
Of course not. Nobody's ever convicted them of spiking Java, or killing
DR-DOS, either. MS always gives up before they get convicted, so that
sock puppets like you can try to pass this bullshit off as rational
thought. MS agreed not to continue ppl (and then found a loophole, of
course, and continued) in the 1995 consent decree they signed to avoid
prosecution for their forced bundling of Windows and DOS.
>The recent farce was about bundling a browser with the OS.
And resulted in a conviction in federal court. Doh!
And, yes, you can still try to say it will be overturned with a straight
face, because you are apparently fundamentally dishonest to begin with.
It ain't gonna happen, and no reasonable person would claim any
certainty about what will happen.
>> That's why they signed a consent decree....and then went out and
>> did it again....with "per-system" licensing fees.
>
>You mean not realise this, but the point of signing a consent
>decree is often to avoid the whole "GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!"
>thing.
Also known as a conviction.
>> And again, they were found GUILTY! GUILTY! GUILTY!
>
>Yes, but of putting too many features in their OS, not of
>restraint of trade as you seem to understand the concept.
They were found guilty of
A) monopolizing PC OSes
B) attempted monopolization of browsers
C) restraint of trade through bundling
Choke on it, trollboy.
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:51 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Daniel Johnson wrote:
>> > Oh yes. Most of the stuff DOS does, you'd
>> > use DOS for.
>>
>> So does Windows. Remove "Command.com" from a Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.1, 3.11,
>> 95, or 98 system, and tell us what happens.
>
>Command.com is a shell. It's like /bin/sh in Unix. This
>doesn't mean Unix "runs on" /bin/sh.
Yet despite this, Windows 'runs on' command.com. Just boot up Win98 in
DOS mode, and then type 'win' at the prompt. You'll see what I mean.
>Windows still uses DOS for a few things- for instance,
>I believe it still thunks down into DOS to access the
>current date/time.
"DOS", whatever abstraction you care to use that label for, is entirely
a part of Windows, the very basis of Win3 and Win9x, the *operating
system* in use. MS likes to play games trying to change the label,
attributing 'operating system' capabilities to "Windows", instead of to
DOS, as is technically correct. They're far more interested in
marketing than technical validity, though.
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:53 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 04 May 2001
[...]
>Being a "better DOS than MS-DOS" is damning it with
>faint praise. MS-DOS was *terrible*; DR-DOS was
>only slightly less terrible.
>
>It's not for nothing that MS has spend the last
>fifteen years trying to kill DOS.
Certainly not. Its for monopoly profits. The public won't accept MS
doubling the price of the OS; they insist that the price remain
comparable to what DOS (or WinDOS) has always been. By killing DOS,
Microsoft has the chance to force every single customer to pay ten times
more for their OS! And given the scams they've worked up, it looks like
they're hoping they'll be forced to pay it over and over again, too.
--
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: Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:54 GMT
Said JS PL in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 02:54:11 -0400;
>T. Max Devlin wrote in message
[...]
>>The distinction is a myth created by Microsoft to explain why their
>>products sucked so much.
>
>No Max, the distinction is proven by personal experience.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
>"Its only a desktop; if you need
>>[performance|reliability|stability|capabilities|scalability|compatibility|i
>nteroperability]
>>then get a server!"
>
>If you want all of the above including well developed aplications just get
>WINNT.
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!!!!
>>>> 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.
>
>Too bad you wouldn't know, since the only OS your smart enough to run is
>Windows95. Real professional there Max. Your too fucking poor to ugrade from
>Windows 95 to Linux. Yeah - your a real fricking genius.
>In your situation I'd probably be pissed and dimented too.
>
Oh, please, please, stop! I'm busting a gut here! ROTFLMAO!
--
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
******************************
