Linux-Advocacy Digest #325, Volume #34 Tue, 8 May 01 12:13:05 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: 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)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux (T. Max Devlin)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:04:08 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 7 May 2001 14:10:12
>On Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:19 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:40:09
>>>On Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:43 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>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:
>> [...]
>>>>>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.
>>>
>>>Being unfalsifiable and being true can be two faces of the same
>>>statement. The above statement is true. The rest I don�t care.
>>
>>That statement is false; all unfalsifiable statements are, by
>>definition, untrue. This was proven by the philosopher of science Karl
>>Popper several decades ago.
>
>Then you are saying that my original statement, which was an obvious
>tautology, is false? That's way beyond weird.
Extremely way beyond weird, yes. It is truly Deep Philosophy.
No, I am not saying that your original statement, which was an obvious
tautology, is false. However, your original statement, being an obvious
tautology, is false. For an example, consider this perfectly valid and
reasonable statement: statements do not have faces. Now, I know you
meant the term metaphorically. But, then, I meant that "all tautologies
are false" metaphorically. So my rhetoric (some statements which are
tautologies must be considered true, obviously, or no language is
possible at all) is canceled out by your rhetoric (that statements have
faces) and we are left with the simple analytical truth. Which is that
you are incorrect: a statement which is unfalsifiable cannot logically
be considered true, ever. Of course, I could be wrong. ;-D
[...]
>>To claim there is a distinction between what you believe and what you
>>know is an unfalsifiable claim of omniscience.
>
>It is, however, an eminently practical course of action.
If you have no intention of ever rising above your own ignorance, maybe.
I prefer to seek enlightenment, and I can think of no less attractive
course of action than delusion.
[...]
>>Who would ever license code which does not work?
>
>Anyone who wants it to be protected by copyright, yet used by someone
>else.
No, I meant, "Where would you find a 'someone else' who would have a
reason to license code which does not work?"
>Since the code is copyrighted, only through a license can anyone
>else look at it.
I'm sorry; copyright cannot possibly prevent anyone from looking at
copyrighted anything. What kind of bizarre thinking is this? Do you
actually believe you understand copyright law? The thing which prevents
looking at things is being secret, but end user license agreements,
based on trade secret law, are not at issue here. We are discussing
copyright licenses, which only have meaning to producers. The inherent
context of the discussion concerning the GPL and its applications seems
to be misunderstood by you and Les and JD and many others. No end user
is at all restricted by the license, and so no doom-and-gloom scenarios
about how it is applied are compelling to them. Only developers could
possibly have any issues with GPL (and that includes Les's 'negative
development' scenarios, and JD's 'inherent dishonesty' ravings), and so
we could only be talking about copyright in terms of *production* of
software.
This is why I said, months ago, even though I knew it would be
misinterpreted and wouldn't even be understandable at the time, that
only commercial software producers have a problem with GPL, even though
none of the people who oppose the GPL in the discussion is specifically
or necessarily a commercial software producer. The whole premise of
having any complaint at all about the GPL is the defense of commercial
software covered by trade secret licenses. Once you say that there is
some reason not to choose or support the GPL, or choose or support
software specifically because it is GPL, the inherent context is that
you have some reason for wanting to charge people for something that
costs you nothing. The basic argument, the fundamental premise of the
modern software industry, is that this is necessary to fund software
development. That does seem to be the basis of your argument, even if
it isn't the content of your argument.
I'd appreciate reasoned comments on that statement.
>> You're presuming that
>>the "bunch of code" does not need modification (making it a derivative
>>or a separate copyrighted work, not the original "bunch of code" at all)
>>in order to become part of a program.
>
>I am presuming nothing. It may need to be modified, it may not need to
>be modified. It makes no difference.
I must insist it does. It goes to the very nature of the existence of
this "API" thing.
>> This is, again, the point of the
>>matter: in theory this might be possible, but to try to defend it as a
>>practical reality is to presume perfection of all programmers.
>
>Non-working code is copyrighted by default.
Not "non-working". Code that does not work; it is supposed to but it
doesn't, it is worthless as an example, it cannot be incorporated in a
functioning program without impairing that function. Such code might
metaphysically be covered by copyright, but you're never going to have
to go to court over it, because nobody will ever care. In an analytical
sense, copyright isn't an issue until its worth some money to somebody.
Your "tree falling in the woods" default might make a sound, but there's
nobody there to hear it.
[...]
>>So all APIs exist?
>
>All APIs that exist indeed exist. Those APIs that don't exist are not
>APIs.
Good point. Unfortunately, it isn't a valid response to my statement.
Your injection of the extraneous phrase "that exist" into my statement
removes the context in which I said it. My point is that APIs don't
exist to begin with. "They" have a label, though, so obviously that
point is nonsensical if you're going to apply it metaphorically. It is
an analytical claim: APIs are like "ideas", they don't empirically
exist. Reference to APIs is a convention for reference to one or more
libraries. APIs that don't exist are anything you want them to be,
because they are imaginary, and therefore they can be APIs. Not all
APIs exist, therefore APIs don't exist, in the way that a program or a
library exists.
>> If an API "can't exist or not exist", and it is
>>possible ("if it doesn't") for it not to exist, then no APIs exist, or
>>all APIs exist.
>
>Just because I give a consequence of nonexistence, it doesn't mean the
>nonexistence is actual.
Certainly. Nevertheless, the consequence of nonexistence in this case
is inevitability, making it actual.
>> Apparently, we've got a fractured abstraction here.
>>Either APIs *can* "exist or not exist", or they do not exist. You know
>>my vote is for the latter; they are abstractions that are handy for
>>referring to complex relationships between various mathematical codes,
>>but they don't ever exist as concrete things.
>
>And that's where I disagree, because I have manipulated APIs.
Wow. What's it like? Were they squishy? Slimey? Course? Warm?
Frigid? Heavy? What did they look like? What color were they?
>I have
>been asked to create them, I have given them to others, I have waited
>for them to exist, I have used them after they do. Saying they don't
>exist is like saying my hands don't exist.
Not by quite a bit of a shot. Your hand is a physical object, and all
of the previous questions I gave about an API can be answered very
easily and any reasonable person would agree with the validity of the
answers. The "them" that you kept shoveling around, however, is nothing
but a figment of your imagination. That doesn't at all prevent it from
being useful. You might want to use the term "exist" to necessarily
include anything which is useful to that which does exist (you or I).
But you have to agree that its possible for something to not exist, but
still be referred to with language. There could always be some use to
me of referring to such a thing, but that doesn't make it exist. There
are no "square circles". But the very phrase is an API, if you will, to
a concept in my brain. Make the appropriate "procedure call", and I
will return the metaphysical object.
In this case, square circles don't exist, and this supposed API to my
brain is fantasy, so we'll say it is metaphorical (without getting into
the dicey subject of whether something that is metaphorical exists).
You might say that libraries exist (that would be dicey, but again we'll
presume it entirely correct), but that doesn't mean APIs "exist" the
same way programs and libraries do. What you moved with your hand was
documentation about an API. It might seem nonsensical to say you could
document something that doesn't exist. I would say they were
documentation for something that does exist, but you don't know what it
is, is all. It is the library, that supposedly supports the API. Even
if it isn't written down yet, you've invoked its existence by talking
about an API.
>>>> If so, what signifies this
>>>>'existence' in a concrete sense? Does an API simply 'exist' as soon as
>>>>someone says it does?
>>>
>>>Almost. I�d say as soon as someone creates it.
>>
>>It is apparent to me that you enjoy otherwise useless epistemological
>>babbling. So I will accommodate you.
>>
>>If an API 'exists' as soon as someone 'creates' it, then there can be no
>>APIs, since none have ever been created, but only described. You can't
>>"use" an API, you can only "use" a library (or stub) corresponding to
>>(described with) the API. The API remains an abstraction, entirely.
>
>You 'use' the API, to create the implementation of the API, like
>you create a blueprint to create a house, like you create a method
>to factor a polynomial.
Does a library implement an API, or does a program? Which is the
essential "use"? They both do, and they both are, of course. An API is
an idea; it has as much existence as any other idea. Which is to say,
none, outside of the world of metaphysics. That doesn't mean "APIs
don't exist", and it doesn't mean "thoughts don't exist". It just means
that this is a type of existence which is not the same as brains,
programs, libraries, hands, and documentation.
>>This presumes that you actually meant something when you said "creates",
>>of course, and I believe you did not.
>
>Actually, I did mean pretty much what you said, only you are wrong.
No, you meant something other than 'creates', though the term is the one
you used. YOU of course understood your thought, so you assume that I'm
wrong when I inform you it was incomprehensible. Perhaps you should try
to communicate more precisely.
>> You meant to simply beg the
>>question, "is an API created as soon as someone says it does", and
>>entirely identical philosophical question to the first one. And so, in
>>trying to pointedly and apparently successfully to avoid answering the
>>question, we are left only with the fact that you are ignorant, and
>>happy with that state of affairs.
>
>Well, you seem to think APIs are not used and they don't exist.
No, I did not say they were not used, only that they do not exist. ;-)
>I know that to be wrong. I would say you are ignorant in this particular
>matter.
Then you obviously did not understand what I meant. Your bad.
>>>> It seems likely, since it is an abstraction, not
>>>>a thing.
>>>
>>>An API is a thing. Yet it is a thing that can be created. Like a book.
>>
>>A book is a physical object. Is a book describing an API an API, or a
>>book?
>
>A book is a book, of course of course.
I think we've managed to identify the level of your intellectual
capabilities.
>> If it is both, then the API is a description, a characteristic of
>>a book, not an object like a book.
>
>It doesn't follow from the above.
Why not?
>>>>Is not being a car sufficient?
>>>
>>>No, it is necessary, but not sufficient. Of the things that are not
>>>cars, some are APIs. Of the things that don�t exist, there is no
>>>way to know if any is an API.
>>
>>Your kindergarten level epistemology is cute, but very simplistic.
>>Can't you go any faster?
>
>Well, since you are asking silly things like "is not being a car
>sufficient to be an API?" I thought I would slow down to your speed.
What? You can't keep up with such a simple an obvious question? (The
correct answer is "no", in case you were having trouble.) Are you SURE
you know how to speak English?
>>>> Then it would always exist,
>>>>wouldn't it, since an API is never a car?
>>>
>>>No.
>>
>>Why not? Things that are not cars exist, don't they?
>
>Because not being a car is not sufficient to be an API. Your
>premise is wrong.
It is not my premise. Roberto said that APIs that don't exist and cars
that don't exist are somehow related. I'm just trying to determine the
nature of their metaphysical relationship.
>> If none of the things that don't exist are APIs
>
>Let me parse this: "none of the things that don't exist are APIs"
>is the same as "all of the things that don't exist are not APIs"
>right?
No. I know it sounds like an obvious lapse in logic, but this is just
the limits of logic, and why reason is transcendent. Things that don't
exist don't have to follow any rules, so they can be what they are and
what they are not at the same time. Such is the nature of things which
don't exist: metaphysics.
>In that case, it makes no sense. The things that don't exist
>have no properties. Among the properties they don't have is
>the property of being an API (and that of not being an API,
>as well).
Likewise and simultaneously, things that don't exist have every
property. Among the properties they have is the property of being an
API, as well as the property of not being an API.
The problem with logic, the one that reason was created (metaphorically
speaking) to overcome, is that it is utterly useless for dealing with
what doesn't exist, regardless of how useful it might be for dealing
with what does.
>Since the premise is false, the consequence is irrelevant
>and snipped.
Well, now you can just go back and comment on it, since the premise was
not false at all, not even in a metaphorical sense.
--
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
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:04:09 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 7 May 2001 14:12:26
>On Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:21 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>And I asked what about the concepts in your mind, and you found yourself
>>>>trapped. Now you're getting the spanking you deserve.
>>>
>>>Nonsense. I am subject by the concepts in my mind, and I agreed to
>>>that already. I think you are confused.
>>
>>No, you said that you were subject to some of them, but not others,
>
>I don't recall saying it precisely like that.
Precisely, you indicated that you could tell the difference between the
ones in your mind that rule you and the ones that don't:
>>>>>>>I may be ruled by them. However this one is not one of them.
I demonstrated how this logically demands that you were rules by some
but not others:
>>>>>>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?
[...]
>>>Lack of reading skills, maybe.
>>
>>Doubtful; lack of writing skills is more obviously the explanation.
>
>Well, I have at least a valid excuse for that.
You have an excuse. It would be a mistake for you to self-proclaim it
valid.
--
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: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:04:10 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> 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.
>>
>> No apologies for back-pedaling with dishonest intent will be accepted,
>> I'm afraid.
>
>That is your problem. I can only offer the olive branch, when it
>is called for; I can't make you accept it.
You can offer it in good faith. You did not do so.
>> >I guess I crossed the line that time. I'll try not to do it again.
>>
>> No you won't, and I will not be foolish enough to believe you will try.
>
>Ah, such pessimism. I'll try to be good anyway.
Obviously, it would be senseless of me to demand anything more than
repentance.
>> This is the problem with being dishonest; like the boy who cried wolf,
>> the troll cannot suddenly convince anyone he is a reasonable person.
>
>Goes with the territory. A neutral observer I'm not. :D
Nobody else is, either; you don't get any slack because of that.
--
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: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:04:11 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> Better lay your claims to unfalsifiability early on. It's easier to
>> just pretend you're right all the time than to bother being reasonable,
>> ever, huh?
>
>And this, coming from someone who thinks being reasonable is to claim anyone
>who makes any type of mistake running Windows can only be the fault of
>Microsoft, yet any mistake on any other software is their own fault.
I don't recall ever making that claim. What a shock: JS PL turns out to
be a man who not only claims I am unreasonable, but tries to use a lie
to prove it. Guffaw!
--
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: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:04:12 GMT
Said Rick in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001 06:43:55 -0400;
>billwg wrote:
>>
>> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >
>> > How do you know it is not presented in evidence? Do you have a catlog of
>> > evidence and if so, have you searched it?
>> >
>> The transcripts for the DOJ actions are on the DOJ website, at
>> http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/ms_index.htm. They are also on the Microsoft
>> site in their PressPass area. I've read most of it and I've never seen any
>> reference to any such contract or offering.
>
>Is this for the trial? The cited letter would have been in reference to
>DOS and W3.1. It would have been collevted as evidence byt the FTC or
>DOJ during the last action which resulted in the consent decree stopping
>product tying and per-processor licenses.
Well, or failing to stop product tying and per-processor licensing, as
the it turns out.
--
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: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:04:14 GMT
Said Steve Sheldon in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May 2001 18:30:11
>"Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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.
>>
>> Clue for the Clueless--the DOJ investigation PRECEEDS the Klintoon years.
>
>Ok, you are aware that President Clinton took office in January of 1993,
>right?
The FTC investigation into MS started in the late 80s.
--
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: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:04:16 GMT
Said billwg in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001 02:01:50 GMT;
[...]
>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.
I think you're just steam-rolling towards the destination you've already
picked out. There is plenty of evidence just like the letter Rick
showed. The point is, such evidence is non-compelling, in a legal
sense; Microsoft can't be convicted for simply choosing not to sell
Windows without DOS. Anti-trust doesn't work like that. It is the
monopolization, not the strategies used to monopolize, which are
illegal.
>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.
You say that as if they don't have a reason to dislike Microsoft, but
just chose to do so because they like hating big companies. So why
don't they all hate GE?
--
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: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:04:17 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May
>"Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>
>> > typo and all huh?.. That looks real authentic. Oh I see, it came from
>the
>> > fictional book The Microsoft File.
>>
>> Fictional? Prove it. Better yet, sue th author. If it is so fictional,
>> tell us why Microsoft didnt sue.
>
>It's not my job to prove made up events didn't happen. It's the authors job
>to prove they DID. Something that is soreley lacking in the gossip fish
>stories of the Microsoft File.
>Prove aliens didn't come down for a photo op with Clinton? Same thing.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha. JS PL thinks that since Microsoft is guilty, space
aliens have had their picture taken with Clinton! Did you hear that?
>There's a pretty good precedent for huge corporations *not* being
>successfull in suing rouge loners with pencils. Just ask the author of
>WalMartsucks.com et. al. On top of that, the book has surely caused no harm
>to Microsoft.
Then again, they specifically published putative documents that
according to you are genuinely fraudulent. And MS didn't sue? You are
gullible, aren't you?
--
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: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:04:18 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 6 May
[...]
>I've glanced through it at Barnes & Noble and read reviews. Why would I want
>to BUY tabloid trash?
The same reason I bought "The Road Ahead". OUTED!
--
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: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:04:19 GMT
Said billwg in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 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.
This from Microsoft, which has been known to exact editorial control
over articles written about them, restrict publishing benchmarks and
reviews with EULAs, and bluster in the media, even if they don't sue, at
the slightest threat to their greatness.
The fact is, some of the people who read the book who did like
Microsoft, don't anymore.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Another Windows pc gets Linux
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 08 May 2001 16:04:21 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 22:36:18
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>
>> >> >You have to convert to postscript! Oh boy! Insert File in word, and it
>> >> >does it straight away!
>> >>
>> >> No telling what "it" is, of course; Word does really weird things with
>> >> embedded graphics.
>> >
>> >"it" is Word.
>>
>> Word does Word straight away? Doh!
>
>You're being deliberately dense. "Word does it straight away".
You are apparently missing my point. Word does "it"(?) straight away?
What is "it"?
No telling what "it" is, of course; Word does really weird things with
embedded graphics.
--
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
******************************
