Linux-Advocacy Digest #255, Volume #34 Sun, 6 May 01 13:13:14 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Why does Flatfoot feel so threatened? (Ray Chason)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: IE ("Mart van de Wege")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS ("Edward Rosten")
Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT (Ray Chason)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("Daniel Johnson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:11:44 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> 18:43:12 GMT;
> >I think you need to study up a bit. Command.com is
> >a shell and it lets you start other software- including
> >Windows.
>
> I think you need to read more carefully.
Oh? Why is that
> >Just as with /bin/sh, you can crank up X-Windows,
> >your favorite window manager, etc.
>
> Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
It's true. /bin/sh can do that.
> >If anything Windows software is less dependant
> >on command.com than Unix software is on /bin/sh.
>
> BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
That's true too. A lot of Unix software
is built by stringing separate processes
together, and /bin/sh is often used as a
tool to do it.
Windows software tends to use
dynamic link libraries instead.
> >It's not very reasonble to say that Windows
> >"runs on" command.com. It distorts the
> >real relationship.
>
> Microsoft distorts the real relationship more; that's the point.
What has Microsoft said that you don't like about
command.com?
> No,
> Daniel, I am not even a little bit confused about the relationship of
> command.com to DOS or Windows. No, I do not think it has the analytical
> relationship that my metaphoric description indicates. But it is simply
> more correct, for all its inaccuracies, then Microsoft's.
You meant "runs on" to refer to an "analytical
relationship"?
Whoa. Deep.
[snip]
> >In a marketing sense this is very true, but technically
> >there's a very stark distinction- real mode vs. protected
> >mode, in essense.
>
> I am not stupid enough to believe Microsoft when they claim "enhanced
> mode" (real mode was "non-mode", where Windows ran as an app, as I
> explained [and you disputed; interesting how now you've dropped that
> argument, without bothering to admit to your mistake] was the case in
> the first two versions)
No, you've got it mixed up. I agree that in real mode Windows
is a DOS application.
> is somehow something that Windows does. It is a
> DOS extender, not very much different than EMM386. Running EMM386
> didn't magically make "EMM" the OS instead of DOS, and I don't see any
> reason to believe that Windows does, either.
EMM386 doesn't replace any DOS functions; it is used only
for things that DOS equivalents can't do.
I find it odd that you think Windows does not (or rather
did not) do "enhanced mode". What does, if not Windows?
[snip]
> >Yes, they are.
> >
> >Technically, though, most of the stuff OSes
> >traditionally do, Windows does without invoking
> >DOS.
>
> "Invoking"? I have no need for magical spells.
Would you prefer "calling"? That term is also
technically accurate.
> >This is because DOS sucks so hard. :D
>
> As does Windows, and all the other monopoly crapware. :D
Oh, no, Windows sucks much less hard.
> >There *are* places when DOS code still
> >executes, but not very many.
>
> I don't care about 'executing code', either.
No?
> Whether we are talking
> about marketing (in which MS defrauded their customers) or technology
> (in which MS simply lied, frequently and routinely) WinDOS (Win3.x...ME)
> is just monopoly crapware, Microsoft is just a criminal organization,
> and you are just a troll who likes to get a spanking.
You seem to be expressing a certain, um, disdain for
the actual 'facts on the ground'. It's not a particularly
convincing position; it sounds very like "I don't care
what MS did or does; I just hate them".
> Thanks for your time. Hope it helps.
It did, yes. Thank you. :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:11:46 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> [...]
> >> You expect me to be surprised that Word for Windows 1.0 used Windows 2
> >> controls in early builds?
> >
> >I'd be surprised at *that*; Windows uses dynamic linking;
> >I'd expect Word to get the current standard controls
> >regardless of what it was built with. Like Excel did.
>
> As has been said before (advice you should try to remember, Daniel):
> When you're digging a hole, the trick is to know when to stop digging.
>
> YOU might be surprised at such a glitch, but it is obvious that you were
> not cognizant of the matter at the time. It would certainly not
> surprise anyone who is familiar with the matter.
You're bluffing, Max. I know exactly how Windows 3
did this stuff.
An application links to User.dll; this DLLs initialization
code used RegisterClass to register the control's
classes. After that, an application can create a
control using CreateWindow(), and passing the name
or atom for the desired control. It gets whatever
control is registererd by User.dll.
A Windows 2 app that uses Windows 3's User.dll
will get Windows 3's controls- including three-d
scrollbars and buttons.
Word is doing something funny.
> >But apparently Word rolled its own controls for
> >some reason. Perhaps in order to 'fake' MDI on a
> >Windows 2 platform. But if they were targetting
> >Windows 3, why not just use the built in
> >implementation?
>
> They didn't "target" Win3; they ONLY SUPPORTED Win3. I'll tell you one
> more time, just in case you missed it the first half a dozen times:
> there was no Word for Windows before Windows 3.
Yes, you say that, but I think the available evidence says
otherwise.
> OF COURSE, that indicates it was being developed during the time of
> Windows 2, and your rather laughably naive theory that Microsoft's
> software doesn't have glitches like this ALL OVER IT, even to this day
> (no, troll, I didn't say that modern apps use 2-D controls from Win2)
> might make you believe this means it "ran under" Win2, but I think I've
> already mentioned your lack of contemporaneous information.
Microsoft's software *does* have glitches sort of like this all
over it, but they go the other way.
That is, they *often* statically link controls into betas that
aren't yet released in any OS. For instance, the .NET beta
uses new menus that look very Windows XP-ish.
Word seems to have gone the other way. They seem
to have used controls from the *previous* rather than
the *next* version of Windows. That is most odd.
I say that when Word was released Windows 2
*was* the current version.
> >On the other hand, perhaps Word needed a special
> >'compatibility' mode, and Microsoft provided it.
>
> Perhaps they just slapped together whatever crap was good enough to
> simulate real software in order to shove it down the throats of all the
> many victims of the illegal monopoly.
I dunno. Why not just use the prefab controls in Windows
if they wanted to do that? It is a lot easier.
> >I can't say, but it's certainly weird.
>
> I can, and it isn't at all unusual. Hardly even notable, unless you're
> a troll who appreciates the historical remove to cover his purposeful
> cluelessness.
I can't think of another example of this. Can you?
> >In any case, the article claims that Word
> >is available immediately. I don't think it's
> >showing "early builds" of it.
>
> OH, well, if YOU DON'T THINK so, then we must accept that as the way of
> things, certainly. Guffaw.
Weeeeell, it seems like you want us to accept your, um, notions
as holy writ, without the slightest evidence.
[snip]
> >I don't know, Max. I don't think you've
> >demonstrated that I have "no experience at all";
> >what makes you think that's so?
>
> You haven't demonstrated the first reason to believe otherwise, that's
> why. Doh!
Fair enough. I hope my little explaination of how controls get
into Windows apps will be the first reason. Let me know
when you want a second. :D
[snip]
> >I think my explaination is better.
>
> I think you just want to stretch this spanking out a bit to satisfy your
> itch for trolling, personally.
That too. :D
> >> Let the spanking continue!
> >
> >A glutton for punishment, you are.
> >
> >I like that. It's kinky. :D
>
> You're the sub, boy. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha!
Really? :D
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:11:44 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> >> You still seem to be under the impression you can annoy me with
personal
> >> insults. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha-ha.
> >
> >You consider "reasonable" a personal insult? Wow. :/
>
> For the other sixth graders besides Daniel who didn't get the joke: I
> consider comparison with Aaron Kulkis an insult, and Daniel knew this,
> which is why he is pretending that he didn't mean it as an insult.
Actually, no, I didn't know it. I apologize for saying that.
I guess I crossed the line that time. I'll try not to do it again.
[snip]
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Why does Flatfoot feel so threatened?
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:21:39 -0000
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>Linux was/is and will continue to be a miserable failure as a consumer
>desktop OS until it wakes up and starts offering an end result that is
>superior instead of an inferior result based upon theoretical superior
>technologies.
You mean superior results such as:
1) Not popping up the Blue Screen of Death at the drop of a hat?
2) Not grinding to a halt because you clicked "recalculate" on
a large spreadsheet?
>Consumers want instant gratification and Linux is way out in left
>field as far as that is concerned. A consumer can call a 1-800 number
>they saw on TV and order the latest and greatest Pentium 4 system with
>all of the bells and whistles including AOL or MSN for less than 2k.
1) 99% of the software available today doesn't need a Pentium 4, or
even a Pentium 3, in spite of Microsoft's best efforts to bloat
everything beyond all reason.
2) If you want to waste your money on AOL or MSN, that's your choice.
I'd rather have a real ISP, so that
a) I can choose my own software, and
b) all my bandwidth is used for moving my stuff instead of
shoving advertising in my face.
3) *This* consumer values performance and usefulness over "bells and
whistles."
But if you want to waste your money on worthless "features," then
be my guest.
>They open the box plug it in and it works. Sure the scanner/printer
>and modem are Win* variety, but who cares? It works. They have a
>pre-load with all kinds of games, office suites and so forth. The same
>Office suites that their children are using in school. My daughter
>needed to a Power point presentation for French class the other day
>(she is 15 and in 9th grade). Am I going to give her a Linux version?
>Hell no!!! I want the CD I burn to run on Windows because that is what
>her teacher uses. Why be a martyr?
If Power Point is a requirement, then Power Point is what you should
use. If she just needs to be able to show images, then any program
in that class will do; in a pinch you could even use the Gimp.
>Linux lusers like to talk about free applications. Well take a look at
>the header page of Freshmeat for today 5/5/2001.
>
>I sure see a lot of great stuff here....NOT :(
[application list elided]
I did not see even one application on that list that would not be of
use to someone, somewhere (assuming that they work, an assumption that
I cannot confirm). Yes, these are niche products. That's part of
what free software is all about: software should be available to do
a job, if it is needed, whether the corporations give a damn or not.
>Most of this stuff might as well be Greek to the average user. Command
>Line CDRW applications? Maybe 10 years ago but now? Get real already!
GUIs are nice. GUIs are pretty. GUIs are easy.
But most GUI apps can't be batched in any meaningful way.
>But yet this is what Linux is all about. A collection of disjointed,
>half done applications of dubious quality that virtually nobody is
>using on the desktop.
Ah, yes, the old bandwagon argument again. "Virtually nobody" needs
"yet another macro assembler that can program the GB-Z80, Z80, 6502,
6510, and 65816 CPUs" (an actual app from that Freshmeat page),
therefore it shouldn't be available. Only mass-market apps peddled
by large corporations should be available.
As for "dubious quality", you are qualified to comment on that only
if you've used the app on which you are commenting.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:27:11 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> >MS did not exclude anyone from developing on
> >Windows. They *encouraged* it.
>
> They encouraged it in IBM by refusing to license Windows development
> tools to them unless they agreed that they would not use anything
> developed with them in any OS/2 product. Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha! <*SPANK*>
I think you are trying to hard to force the facts to fit;
your grammar has broken down.
On the face of it, this does not seem to contradict
what I said; MS appears to be demanding that IBM
used Windows development tools to make
Windows software.
But frankly its hard to tell, what with the way
you wrote it. "in IBM"? It sounds positively
uncomfortable.
> >They did not keep the industry from suppoting OS/2;
> >for a while they were in fact advocating that very thing,
> >but the industry was not listening.
>
> That was before they got Windows to the point they could screw everybody
> over.
Well, something like that. :D
> >After the divorce, they changed their tune.
>
> There's no "divorce", these aren't people who have "disagreements" and
> are "crafty" or "underhanded".
Microsoft isn't "crafty" and "underhanded" in your view?
I confess I am surprised.
> These types of metaphors may work with
> businesses, but Microsoft is a criminal organization, and so they are
> inappropriate in this discussion.
>
> Microsoft lies. Often, all the time, since the beginning, whenever
> given the chance. It is possible that you do, too.
Indeed, I suspect you must believe that large chunks of
the world lie; it would be necessary to sustain your, um,
worldview.
But in this case, it seems like we agree on all
but the epithets to be used.
------------------------------
From: "Mart van de Wege" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: IE
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:36:13 +0200
Crossposted-To: alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
In article <BneJ6.4388$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "Michael
Pye" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> It is the browser for KDE. It (KDE 2.1.1) is a bit slow to start on a
>> P-120 but runs ok after starting. It starts and runs well on a P-300.
>> Haven't tried it on a 200. You have to be on a Unix-y OS though.
>
> Damn it, and I use Gnome! Still, I'll try the KDE out when I get round
> to it...
>
Michael,
have you tried Galeon yet? It would fulfill your needs as a lightweight
fast browser, and since it is written for Gnome, it might fit better with
your desktop. I use it myself and it is a very nice little browser.
Galeon uses the Gecko rendering engine from Mozilla, and slaps a Gnome
frontend on it. Pro is that it renders fast and yet stays responsive, con
is that it is a bitch to build yourself. If you run an rpm based system
and you have Mozilla (at least version 0.8) installed already, it may
just be a single download (slightly over 1M).
HTH,
Mart
--
Gimme back my steel, gimme back my nerve
Gimme back my youth for the dead man's curve
For that icy feel when you start to swerve
John Hiatt - What Do We Do Now
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:41:58 GMT
"Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> In article <dJZI6.6119$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > "Roy Culley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[snip]
> > These efforts at providing a user interface toolkit
> > and graphics engine were not adequate. And I do not
> > think they reveal an intention on Suns part to go into
> > the desktop area; the limited tools Sun did provide
> > were appropriate for the applications then being
> > run on Suns.
>
> Sun started off producing workstations not servers. It was about the
> time they produced OpenWindows that the server market really took
> off. Sun basically gave up the desktop (apart from workstations used
> by system developers) and concentrated on the server market. It was
> when BG announced that NT was going to be a better Unix than Unix that
> the battle with Microsoft started. This was a direct assault on Sun's,
> and the other major Unix server companies (HP and IBM to name but 2),
> server business. Microsoft lost that battle and W2K was too little too
> late. Now Sun are again going for the desktop with their sunblade and
> by adopting gnome as the destop GUI. Interesting times ahead.
I agree. This is not Sun trying to muscle in on the desktop;
it is Microsoft trying to muscle in on the workstation market.
I don't know if Sun is going to now attempt to move on the
desktop, but if they do they are going to have a lot of work
to do to catch up there.
[snip]
> > I admit I overlooked it, but I don't think it's
> > representative of Unix in general.
>
> You're right of course. NeXT was a serious attempt to put Unix on the
> desktop. Sadly it was just too expensive / ahead of its time.
If it's technologies were somehow folded into the
other Unix distributions, things might be a bit different.
But that doesn't seem likely, I must say.
[snip]
> > I *strongly* suggest that printing *must* be
> > addressed as soon as possible. I honestly see
> > very little movement on that front.
>
> I don't understand this printing problem that Unix supposedly
> has. Unix apps normally produce postscript. Unix lpr uses filters to
> see what the data type to be printed is. If you don't have a
> postscript printer the filter will use ghostscript to convert it to
> pcl or whatever. I now have a Lexmark z52 which has its own Linux
> driver. To me it is totally transparent. Before I had an
> HP850C. Again printing was totally transparent. Where is the problem?
Printing is not transparent. Developers must emit
PostScript. Doing X on screen and PostScript for
printers does not make WYSIWYG easy.
NeXT used PostScript for *both*. That's far
more workable.
But even so, PostScript is only the right thing
if you and printing to a PS printer; on other printers
GhostScript rasterizes it. This reduces any non PS
printer to a bitmap printer.
Turning the common and popular PCL printers into
the moral equivalent of WinPrinters is not really a
very nice thing to do. :D
[snip]
> > They have an enviable position, indeed.
>
> And it is the Internet server market which is the biggest threat to
> Microsoft's .net strategy.
I'd say it the other way around. .NET is an
effort to gain some ground in the internet server
(and indeed, other server) areas.
[snip]
> > But the desktop is not again going to be
> > a great battleground until somebody offers
> > a product competitive with Windows
> > for producing desktop apps.
>
> The main apps required by businesses are word processing,
> spreadsheets, PIM's, presentations, etc.
Sure.
> These are all available under
> the various unix's today. The problem is not that you can only do
> these things with Microsoft OS and applications but the deep
> infiltration of Microsoft into companies IT infrastructure.
I disagree.
The problem is that you can't make desktop apps
that are as *good* on Unix as you can on Windows.
At least, not without prohibitly large efforts.
> The
> inertia to change is enormous. The slow adoption of W2K shows that
> company's are not willing to fork out for new licences and upgrade
> hardware just because Microsoft says so.
Sucks to be MS some days. :D
> When the CFO's are presented
> with the cost of staying on the Microsoft bandwagon compared to
> cheaper alternatives the tide will change.
Well, slowly. Inertia is a very real thing; it *costs*
to change over from one technology to another.
That isn't a Microsoft conspiracy; it's a fact of
life.
> Even if company's don't
> want to move away from Microsoft why upgrade when NT4 serves them
> well. This is Microsoft's great fear. They rely on the constant
> upgrade cycle. The business community has had enough.
Microsoft has a problem. The upgrade treadmill does not
seem to be working well enough right now. It, um, worked
a lot better when Windows had more glaring deficiencies,
actually.
It *is* possible MS will find a solution, though.
Don't count them out yet.
> And now OSS is
> offering cheaper, higher quality business applications. As import and
> export filters improve between Microsoft proprietory formats the
> reliance on Microsoft products will diminish.
I don't agree here. For now, MS's products in the
desktop area are *better*. Really. It's the problem
I'm going on about. Unix application have a much
tougher row to hoe to get decent quality, because
the OS doesn't give them as much help.
It's basic stuff like the limitations of X-Windows
that are doing it.
Unix, OSS or not, is not yet in position to take
down MS on the desktop. It must address its
own qualitative deficiencies, or MS can win
on quality rather than price.
Don't focus too hard on the ways Unix is
better; the market is already using Unix where
it thinks those are important. Focus on the
places where Unix is still weak.
I don't say Unix can't catch up, but I don't see
all that much effort going into it. KDE and
GNOME are good steps, yes, but too
limited still.
------------------------------
From: "Edward Rosten" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 18:44:23 +0100
> If I were doing extensive tables and equations etc type work I would
> probably take the time to learn LaTeX.
I'd take the time to learn it anyway. Once you're used to it everything
else seems primitive. And the output quality is second to none.
> Isn't Latex available for Windows as well?
Yes it is. Look for MikTeX
> I can't stand WinWord BTW.
That makes 2 of us :)
> Flatfish
--
You can't go wrong with psycho-rats.
u 9 8 e j r (at) e c s . o x . a c . u k
------------------------------
From: Ray Chason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,alt.linux,alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: The long slow slide to Microsoft.NOT
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:44:43 -0000
"Chad Myers" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Geez... even "M$" is smart enough not to allow anyone to read the page file.
"chmod 0600 <swapfiles>" (the swap files should be listed in
/etc/fstab)
You have to be root to do this, of course.
--
--------------===============<[ Ray Chason ]>===============--------------
PGP public key at http://www.smart.net/~rchason/pubkey.asc
Delenda est Windoze
------------------------------
From: "Daniel Johnson" <[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!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 16:45:53 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > Then I suggest you are being sloppy with your accusations; you
> > know full well that MS never excluded anyone. At their *worst*
> > they want you to sell *their* product, whatever else you may sell.
>
> Then why were their OEM-licenses dependant upon NOT selling any
> other vendor's OS?
They weren't.
Remember, not everything Max says is true. :D
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 12:48:42 -0400
billwg wrote:
>
> Do you have any authentication for that letter? That condition would be an
> explicit violation of the Consent Agreement and would be of extreme interest
> to the DOJ, at least the previous administration DOJ. I suspect that the
> story is bogus since there was such an extensive search made by the DOJ for
> any such agreements or documents from Microsoft to the extent of subpoenaing
> contracts from most of the OEMs over the objection of Microsoft but by order
> of the Jackson court.
>
It was published in a book.
The Microsoft File.
Read it.
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > billwg wrote:
> > >
> > > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> > > > >
> > > > >Saying this doesn't make it so. Until 1995, Microsoft
> > > > >sold a version of Windows separate from DOS.
> > > >
> > > > The question is not whether they sold it (had it available). The
> > > > question is how much people bought it. People weren't buying it, so
> MS
> > > > forced it on them: this is documented by Microsoft's internal
> documents.
> > > > Arguing against it just makes you look stupid.
> > > >
> > > This doesn't seem to gibe with the Caldera case theory for one thing.
> Their
> > > assertion was that Microsoft used Windows to leverage MS-DOS, not
> vice-versa
> > > as you seem to be saying.
> >
> > Letter to Mike Davis, Diamond Trading
> >
> > Dear Mike
> > Further to out conversation yesterday, I am writing to confirm that
> > Microsoft is unable to supply you Windows as a single product. Microsoft
> > will only sell you Windows as a combined package with MS-DOS 5.
> > Yours Sincerely
> > OEM Sales
> > Microsoft Ltd.
> >
> > --
> > Rick
> >
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Rick <[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!
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 12:49:55 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 05 May 2001
> > You are saying that Stac and DR and Go are out of line in complaining
> > about Microsoft's purposeful actions to exclude them from the market?
> > That's apologizing for criminal behavior, Daniel. Getting your jollies
> > trolling isn't worth destroying your character so completely.
>
> Stac may have a case; I've heard conflicting reports.
>
Stac won its lawsuit.
> DR and Go certainly do not. They are just abusing the
> legal system. (Well Caldera was. Did Go ever do anything like
> that?)
>
> [snip]
--
Rick
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
