Linux-Advocacy Digest #274, Volume #34 Sun, 6 May 01 22:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing? (Terry Porter)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse me -
d'oh!) ("Tom Wilson")
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Bob Hauck)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Austin Ziegler)
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (Terry Porter)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("JS PL")
Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS (James Philips)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("billwg")
Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP (Johan Kullstam)
Re: Why does Flatfoot feel so threatened? (Terry Porter)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! ("billwg")
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 21:39:52 -0400
On Sun, 6 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001
>> On Sat, 5 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 23:33:45
>>>>> You are mistaken about what "it" is.
>>>> Programming to an API without implementation.
>>> No, creating a program that is derivative of something that doesn't
>>> exist.
>> That's your claim -- and we're saying that mere use of a library
>> doesn't imply or cause derivation. Not that you'll pay attention to any
>> of this -- you don't listen to anything that differs from what you
>> say.
> You've ALMOST managed to post an entire message without abandoning your
> reason, Austin. I'm almost proud of you.
Oh, please, go stick a cork in it, you insufferable gasbag.
> Yes, you have FINALLY gotten to the BEGINNING of the argument you jumped
> in trolling on.
You're the only troll, dimwit. In USENET, trolls are those who bring in
idiotic statements (just like your so-called logic) in order to attempt
to bring about strife and flamage (just like yourself). The *fact* is that
you're wrong.
> The point of the discussion, ultimately, is the fact
> that the courts have not made any decisions either way, and so under
> current law, the FSF's interpretation of the GPL stands, until someone
> has the balls enough to refute it in front of a judge.
While statements about the GPL have not been affirmed or denied in the
courts, there have been court cases which prove your gasbagging to be
nothing more than hot air. In particular, both Les and Isaac have
pointed out court cases that basically point out the *fact* that you're
full of shit. My task has been to point out where you're logically
clueless -- unfortunately, you make that both an extraordinarily easy
and extraordinarily difficult task. It's easy because there's very
little that you say which has any usable logic behind it; it's
difficult because there's so many things that you say that aren't
merely wrong, but are painfully wrong that it's tough to choose just
which fish in the barrel will be shot.
Now, are you done trying to tell practitioners that they don't know
what they're talking about without anything more than the USENET
equivalent of "my mommy told me so"?
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux advocacy or Windows bashing?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 07 May 2001 01:38:13 GMT
On Sun, 06 May 2001 17:42:38 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>> And for goodness sake can any Linux advocate say with a straight face
>> they can easily connect their Linux box to an ISP?
>
ME!
Anyone who thinks that Linux is hard to connect to the internet, is
totally wrong or lying.
I have connected to at least 6 ISP's using Linux over the years, and the
really cool thing, is that it can be done with:-
1/ A Gui
2/ a simple text script, ie
......................dial...................................................
pppd /dev/modem 38400 modem connect 'chat -v "" ATDT phone-num "CONNECT" ""
"ogin:" "your-login" "word:" "your-password" "$" "ppp"'
..............................................................................
3/ seperate 'obsolete pc' running Linux as a Router/Firewall/Ipmasquer
> I haven't tried (the home computer has a winmodem) but I have heard
> plenty of success stories.
>
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 21:41:56 -0400
On Sun, 6 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:40:48
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Fri, 4 May 2001 23:33:45
>>> [...]
>>>>> You are mistaken about what "it" is.
>>>> Programming to an API without implementation.
>>> No, creating a program that is derivative of something that doesn't
>>> exist.
>> You can write a program that used a non existing API, whatever it's a
>> derivative of a library is another matter.
> I don't really think so, though when I try to explain why, I find that
> most programmers can't understand it. Regardless, you've at least
> gotten down to the original discussion. Whether it is a derivative of
> the library is the WHOLE of the matter.
I think you meant to say that it's an irrelevancy. Especially since you
tried to claim that a program written that uses an API is derivative of
a particular implementation of that API ("a library"). Which is ...
well, let's just say that it's one of your sillier ideas, which is
something worth noting.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: "Tom Wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: MS should sue the pants off linux-mandrake (was: Re: Winvocates confuse
me - d'oh!)
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 01:42:39 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:47:00
> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [...]
> >> >I know what Ada is, and I know how badly the mandate was accepted.
> >> >I also know that there were many loopholes in it.
> >>
> >> Then you should have simply said "Ada was never 'the next big thing'",
> >> if you wanted to disagree with Tom's phrasing, rather than pretending
to
> >> not understand it.
> >
> >I thought he might have more knowledge of the subject then I am.
>
> "Than I do". (No insult intended; just trying to help out with the
> language.) You should have been content with the knowledge that he had
> more perspective than you do.
>
> >Considerring that he said that there was a time that Ada was the next big
> >thing, and that I knew of no such time, I asked about it.
>
> There was such a time, and you knew about it; you just didn't realize
> that it was an accurate description, because you did not know "all"
> about it. It was "the next big thing" at the time.
>
> >I couldn't tell whatever he is right or wrong before knowing what he
spoke
> >about.
>
> Then you should have presumed he was right, and asked questions with
> that tone. You will get flamed less that way.
I think you may be misunderstanding Ayende's tone, Max. I didn't really
detect any sarcasm in it at all. You have to remember that the "ADA Disease"
was a primarily American phenomenon and that it happened nearly two decades
ago. Someone not unfortunate enough to have been around here then and caught
up in the wave isn't going to have a perspective for my response.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 01:43:51 GMT
On Mon, 7 May 2001 02:16:12 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Bob Hauck" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Won't work if the printer is Postscript and does not auto-detect plain
> > ASCII.
>
> How do you handle those printers in Linux? Output PS?
Yes. On Linux, you can always assume the printer is PS. If it isn't a
filter will handle the conversion. Actually, the filter will usually
also handle ASCII (at least...magicfilter does a lot more) as a special
case and create PS for you if necessary.
> > There exist libraries for Linux that allow similar things.
>
> Take X output and turn it into PS?
No, provide an API that can be used for X or a printer. Qt/KDE does
this, although I am not the person to ask about the details since I
haven't yet written any KDE apps, only read through the docs.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Bob Hauck)
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: bobh = haucks dot org
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 01:43:53 GMT
On Mon, 7 May 2001 02:16:36 +0200, Ayende Rahien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Ayende Rahien wrote:
>
> > > > I have an Epson 740. It doesn not support Postscript. Thats why I have
> > > > Ghostscript.
> > >
> > > Now, what does GhostScript *does*?
> >
> > ... and you are trying to pass yourself off as a software engineeer?
> > Ghostscript is a Postscript interpreter. You know, so you can use
> > Postscript output on non-Postscript printers.
>
> I *know* what Ghostscript does, Rick. I'm trying to make a point here.
> You need to take extra steps to setup GS as an interupter for the printer.
Not any more steps than setting up a printer on Windows. IOW, the
printer is set up when you install. You don't specifically have to do
anything about Ghostscript.
It is not even an extra step in terms of computing. In Windows you
have:
GDI calls->printer driver->printer
And in Linux:
Postscript->ghostscript->printer
> But according to Denial, GS isn't a good way to use a printer. Got any info
> about it?
It has always worked just fine for me.
The big problem with Linux printing is not filtering through GS, it is
that you often can't take advantage of special printer features like
job notification, mailboxes, staplers, etc. This isn't due to GS, but
to the lack of a standard way of connecting these features to apps.
--
-| Bob Hauck
-| To Whom You Are Speaking
-| http://www.haucks.org/
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,misc.int-property
From: Austin Ziegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: Sun, 6 May 2001 21:44:26 -0400
On Sun, 6 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
> Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 5 May 2001 20:23:30
>> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>> You mean the library won't work if a programmer makes a function call
>>> unless the function is documented?
>> Of course it would work. The problem would be that you wouldn't know
>> what it does.
>> Similar to standing on an elevator, when the floors' buttons has no
>> numbers, or any other identification.
> How much you want to bet that I can quickly get to the floor I want,
> every time?
If the numbers aren't anywhere on or near the buttons, and they're not
necessarily wired in an ascending or descending order, then you're not
going to get where you expect to quickly -- or at all.
>> You know *how* to use them, you don't know what they will do.
> Many function calls are "self-documenting", in that respect, aren't
> they?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
-f
--
austin ziegler * Ni bhionn an rath ach mar a mbionn an smacht
Toronto.ON.ca * (There is no Luck without Discipline)
=================* I speak for myself alone
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 07 May 2001 01:42:34 GMT
On Sun, 06 May 2001 13:25:48 +0100, Edward Rosten <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> No. The world is applications I want/need to use and even excluding DAW
>>> ones,
>> You said recently that apart from your audio apps, you only use **two**
>> apps.
>
> Don't be mean. Poor flatty can't keep a thought in her head for 5 minutes.
^^^ its
>
> -Ed
But Ed, I was being kind to SquishedBlowfish !
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "JS PL" <hi everybody!>
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, 6 May 2001 21:54:34 -0400
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> Daniel Johnson wrote:
> >
> > "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
>
> Then, try expalain what a per-processor license is.
The per processor license simply required the OEM to pay a royalty to
Microsoft for each computer it manufactured containing a particular
microprocessor type during the term of the agreement. The minimum commitment
provision allowed the OEM to receive a volume discount by committing to ship
a designated number of computers. These agreements had obvious benefits for
both the OEM and Microsoft. Microsoft did not, however, require any OEM to
enter into a per processor license in order for the OEM to license Microsoft
's operating systems products. Rather, it was one of several licensing
options made available to each OEM, and it was selected only by those OEMs
that found it to be to their economic advantage. Indeed, the majority of
Microsoft's license agreements for its operating systems were not per
processor agreements.
------------------------------
Subject: Re: Linux a Miserable Consumer OS
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (James Philips)
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 01:56:21 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>It's quite obvious that your experience is rather deficient.
Thanks for reminding me why I avoid this newsgroup, I had almost forgotten
how much I hate the attitude of the fanatical Linux advocates who post
here.
Maybe Linux would be a more successful and easy to use OS if so many fans
weren't in denial about it's flaws.
James
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[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: Mon, 07 May 2001 02:01:50 GMT
"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> billwg wrote:
> >
> Clue for the Clueless--the DOJ investigation PRECEEDS the Klintoon years.
>
There have been three investigations that I'm aware of, the first being the
SEC/DOJ effort that resulted in the fairly meek 1995 Consent Agreement that
disallowed the "per processor" and multiyear licenses for OEMs who were
willing to deal exclusively with Microsoft in return for a lower license fee
for DOS. That very well may have started with the Bush administration, I
don't have any real information on it and am too lazy to look it up.
The second was the contempt action brought in 1997 that resulted in the
reversals by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals in 1998 that threw out
Jackson's injunctions and appointment of Larry Lessig as a paid master.
Microsoft essentally won that one and obtained the various rulings that it
used effectively in the current appeal.
The third is, of course, the current action brought in 1998 and pending in
the DCCCOA at the present time. From a quick reading of the hearing
transcripts, it would appear that the Jackson decision is once again on the
ropes and not likely to stand, but nothing official has transpired to-date.
The timing of the second action, being contemporaneous with the Hatch
committee hearings on the Al Gore campaign finance fiasco and Janet Reno's
refusal to appoint a special prosecutor to handle the matter raising Senator
Orin "Novell" Hatch's ire, made it appear to be maybe a tit for tat
exchange. Reno dumps on Mr. Softee to placate Orin who quits insisting on
Reno's head on a pike. Maybe everyone in DC is upstanding and only
concerned with truth and justice, but it looked suspicious to me.
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Mafia$oft has REPEATEDLY violated the consent decrees which they have
signed--
> particularly bundling apps with the OS--which is PRECISELY why Jackson
decided
> that breaking up was the only remedy..
Well, the DOJ was pretty stumped on this issue. They tried to claim that
adding a browser to Windows was some sort of illegal conduct and they wanted
the famouse $1,000,000 per day fine, but they didn't get that, even from the
friendly Judge Jackson. I may be incredibly naive, but I think that, if the
DOJ had any real contractual evidence showing a direct violation of the
consent decree as the cited letter purports to be, they would have presented
it to Jackson and had a big, big party all night long. They did subpoena
just about every contract ever signed by Microsoft with every OEM. And they
didn't find anything that they used in court. That tells me that there
wasn't anything that they could use in court and that means that Rick's cite
is a bogus event.
That it was published in an anti-MS book is no surprise. But that doesn't
make it true, just another legend eagerly believed by those who want to feel
vindicated in their dislike of Mircrosoft.
>
> The DOJ called for the punishment to be a 2-way break up.
>
> Jackson referred it back to them, asking them to submit a plan to break
> up Mafia$oft into even MORE pieces.
>
> The DOJ said they couldn't come up with such a plan...so, it currently
> stands as a 2-way breakup.
>
>
>
> >
> > "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
> > >
>
>
> --
> 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.
>
------------------------------
Crossposted-To: alt.destroy.microsoft
Subject: Re: Article: Want Media Player 8? Buy Windows XP
From: Johan Kullstam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, 07 May 2001 02:02:20 GMT
"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Said Ayende Rahien in alt.destroy.microsoft on Sun, 6 May 2001 13:33:48
> > >"green" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> > >news:9d38m6$r3r$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > >
> > >> Probably wouldn't be hard to put a coffee maker on, but that may
> violate
> > >> some gpl on the howto for getting linux to make coffee.
the GPL doesn't prevent anyone from developing their own
implementation any more than a propritary software license prevents
linux from cloning unix.
> > >That is one thing that frighten me about the GPL.
> > >There is already GPLed data, what happen when other things start to get
> GPL?
i'm not a lawyer, but GPL has nothing to do with data.
> > Then the world becomes a better place.
>
> Really? Then why don't tell me how happy you would be when the credit card
> companies would publish *your* credit history, because of GPL?
what planet do you live on? they already publish your credit history.
afaict it has nothing to do with the GPL.
--
J o h a n K u l l s t a m
[[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Don't Fear the Penguin!
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
Subject: Re: Why does Flatfoot feel so threatened?
Reply-To: No-Spam
Date: 07 May 2001 02:01:36 GMT
On Sun, 06 May 2001 19:31:02 GMT,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Sun, 06 May 2001 16:21:39 -0000, Ray Chason
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
<snip>
>>As for "dubious quality", you are qualified to comment on that only
>>if you've used the app on which you are commenting.
>
> As a general statement I have used many applications d/l'd from
> Freshmeat and most of the ones I have used are half done and crude
> with little or no documentation.
This is a very interesting statement.
I on the other hand have had a substantially different experience
to this fake id, Wintroll, known as
"Steve,Mike,Heather,Simon,teknite,keymaster,keys88,Sewer Rat,
S,Sponge,Sarek,piddy,McSwain,pickle_pete,Ishmeal_hafizi,Amy,
Simon777,Claire,Flatfish+++,Flatfish"
I have found the software well written, the authors friendly
and approachable, usually answering my emails about bugs or
features, within ONE day.
Caveat:
This doesn't mean that *all* authors are the same, or that
you will have the same good fortune, this is just my
experience.
>
> Flatfish
--
Kind Regards
Terry
--
**** ****
My Desktop is powered by GNU/Linux.
1972 Kawa Mach3, 1974 Kawa Z1B, .. 15 more road bikes..
Current Ride ... a 94 Blade
** Registration Number: 103931, http://counter.li.org **
------------------------------
From: "billwg" <[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: Mon, 07 May 2001 02:07:31 GMT
"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
> Fictional? Prove it. Better yet, sue th author. If it is so fictional,
> tell us why Microsoft didnt sue.
>
The proof lies in the lack of corroboration in an environment where
corroboration would be very loudly acclaimed. Microsoft can't really sue
because there is no measurement of any damage. The only people who may have
believed the book were already against Microsoft. The people who like
Microsoft don't believe the book. Nobody else was interested in the book.
So no damage to sue for and any significant response by Microsoft would only
serve to publicize and dignify the book itself. It's like answering a
troll.
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
