Linux-Advocacy Digest #359, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 11:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (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: 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: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux has one chance left......... (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux disgusts me (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]>
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:57:06 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001
>On 08 May 2001 06:37:05 GMT, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Terry Porter)
>wrote:
>>
>>One is not a hypocrit for using Windows and advocating Linux imho.
>
>Whatever happened to that Linux machine he ordered from one of the
>Linux hardware places?
I'm using it now.
--
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: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:57:10 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 20:42:23
>Terry Porter wrote:
>
>> Why ?
>>
>> One is not a hypocrit for using Windows and advocating Linux imho.
>
>But in the same breathe trashes Windows, yet they're using it to post?
>Puh-lease!
You don't seem to want to notice what we're trashing it for. 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: 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: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:57:14 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 May 2001 16:08:04
>On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:03:35 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 7 May 2001 13:51:52
>>>On Sun, 06 May 2001 20:21:46 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> [...]
>>>>I had thought that, according to you, no software can be "derivative" of
>>>>any other software, but can only contain copies of other software.
>>>
>>>Guess what? If I take GAWK and change 10% of it, the new thing is
>>>derivative from GAWK. If you really thought I said that, you are not
>>>reading carefully.
>>
>>I was trying to make a point. Some times, you see, you say you can
>>"take X" and "change it", but the result is still just "X", not
>>something new and derivative of "X". Some times, you say that it is
>>"not X", though derivative. How is anybody supposed to know, precisely,
>>when software that gets modified is still the same software, though
>>modified, and when it is supposed to be new software, but derivative?
>
>I don't have a clear answer to that. I'd say it depends on many many
>factors. However, I don't think it makes any difference regarding
>licensing of the software.
And I would say it makes a tremendous and critical difference regarding
licensing of the software. As would anyone who is licensing the
software, unless they're rather naive and have lots of money to waste.
[...]
--
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: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:57:25 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May 2001
>On Tue, 8 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 7 May 2001
>>> On Mon, 7 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>> Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:32:49
>>>>> Maxie:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>And what is then is "the API itself", but a description of the API?
>>>>> That�s like saying a paperback of "The Great Gatsby" is a description
>>>>> of "The Great Gatsby". It makes no sense.
>>>> I don't see why. It seems to me that a copy of "The Great Gatsby" would
>>>> be a rather ideal and precise description of "The Great Gatsby". Now
>>>> ask yourself "is it a description of the intellectual property?"
>>> If you think that, then you're more deluded than I thought. A copy of
>>> "The Great Gatsby" is a copy of "The Great Gatsby", not a description
>>> of same. A description is one level removed from the thing itself and
>>> is "about" the thing.
>> It certainly isn't the description you would expect to get if you asked
>> merely for a description. Yet it is the most complete description you
>> could possibly have.
>
>No, it's not "the most complete description." It *is* the thing.
Yea. And as I said, I can think of no better response to a request for
a description. I don't have time to do your homework for you, you see.
The book is a physical thing; its description is rather arbitrary. The
reason you ask for a description is so you can know the thing. But if
you get a description of an API, you don't just "know the thing", you
HAVE the thing. Get it?
>> Yet, if someone were to ask me, "What is the Great Gatsby?", I can think
>> of no more complete answer I could give him than to hand him the book.
>
>If someone asked you to "describe _The Great Gatsby_", then if you gave
>them the book, you'd simply be an ass and not answering the request at
>all.
Like I said; I don't have time to do your homework for you.
>> My point here is that there is a rhetorical level which your statement
>> is true, but that is mere philosophy. In the real world, it becomes
>> pedantry. The API is nothing but its description.
>
>False. But you knew that, even though you pretend otherwise.
Then what is it? (As if you weren't willing to endlessly regress,
making your definition unfalsifiable and meaningless with each cycle...)
--
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: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:57:34 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 9 May 2001 05:30:59
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
[...]
>> Yet, if someone were to ask me, "What is the Great Gatsby?", I can think
>> of no more complete answer I could give him than to hand him the book.
>> My point here is that there is a rhetorical level which your statement
>> is true, but that is mere philosophy. In the real world, it becomes
>> pedantry. The API is nothing but its description.
>
>So, shotting you is in fact, according to you, merely describing you how it
>would feel to be shot?
You need to go study English a little longer, I'd say.
>Do you think that I could get away with such claim by any reasonable man?
I don't believe you are a reasonable man, for making such a claim. But
I know English is not your first language, so I will give you the
benefit of the doubt, and presume you just didn't understand the point.
Not surprising; it was an extremely complex point. Positively
koan-like. Still entirely accurate, consistent, and practical, though.
It goes to show that philosophical quibbling might be fun, but it is not
a pragmatic solution to real-world problems.
>> >This is where I disagree a bit with Ayende: I believe that an API can
>> >be an API without documentation, but that it's not necessarily usable
>> >without that documentation. If the items in the API aren't documented,
>> >however, they're not part of the agreed-upon "contract" between the API
>> >and the program.
>>
>> But now this draws a distinction between what "is" the API, and the
>> contract the API presents. This falsifies the idea that the API is the
>> contract. But, then, we know the API is nothing but "its contract";
>> this clearly shows that APIs are metaphysical objects, they don't really
>> "exist" the way real things do. Real things would include contracts,
>> descriptions, and books. What really does exist is libraries, and
>> programs, and whether they can interoperate.
>
>Think of the API's functions as the contract header's, useful, but not to
>any usable degree without the rest of it, the spesification.
More metaphysics. Thanks anyway.
--
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: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:57:41 GMT
Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 8 May 2001 16:24:17
>On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:04:03 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 7 May 2001 13:45:16
>>>On Mon, 07 May 2001 05:36:17 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>Said Roberto Alsina in comp.os.linux.advocacy on 6 May 2001 15:32:49
>>>>>On Sat, 05 May 2001 03:26:40 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>>>And what is then is "the API itself", but a description of the API?
>>>>>
>>>>>That�s like saying a paperback of "The Great Gatsby" is a description
>>>>>of "The Great Gatsby". It makes no sense.
>>>>
>>>>I don't see why. It seems to me that a copy of "The Great Gatsby" would
>>>>be a rather ideal and precise description of "The Great Gatsby". Now
>>>>ask yourself "is it a description of the intellectual property?"
>>>
>>>Well, it may seem to you, but it does not seem to me, and it probably
>>>does not seem to copyright law.
>>
>>If you believe your position is correct, why screw it up by claiming to
>>speak for "copyright law"?
>
>I didn't claim to speak for copyright law. Read better.
Of course you did. Perhaps you didn't mean to, but I can't understand
any other meaning for your claiming to know how something might "seem to
copyright law".
[...remainder snipped, only because I am pressed for time...]
BTW, Roberto, that is what Popper said, and it is true, and it doesn't
matter what context you use, as long as it is consistent.
--
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: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:57:50 GMT
Said Austin Ziegler in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May 2001
>On Tue, 8 May 2001, T. Max Devlin wrote:
>> JD brought up the idea of Cliff's Notes, of course. Cliff's Notes are
>> limited to books which are in the public domain, I think.
>
>The problem, of course, is that you don't think.
*ZZZZZZZ*
>They are not limited
>to books in the public domain (or have you never seen CN on _The Sound
>and the Fury_?) Heck; even _The Great Gatsby_ is still, I believe,
>under copyright protection.
So do they pay any royalties, or have they ever been challenged in
court? Do you have any details?
--
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: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:58:00 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001
>> [...]
>> >Hmmm. Your argument seem to presuppose that
>> >if MS is engaging in "restraint of trade", then they are
>> >excluding competitors.
>> >
>> >Is that not so?
>>
>> No, that is not so. Since the actions they are accused of is
>> restraining trade by excluding competitors, if they are found on that
>> evidence to be restraining trade, they are then presumed (not
>> presupposed) to have excluded competitors. Get it?
>
>Ah, so you are saying that you accuse them of
>excluding competitors and *this* implies restraint
>of trade?
No, Daniel. PLEASE learn to read.
--
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: Performance Measure, Linux versus windows
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:58:04 GMT
Said Mikkel Elmholdt in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
><snip>
>
>> >> It was a comparison of performance. Why wouldn't it describe something
>> >> about the relative performance?
>> >
>> >I think that I've stated that already, but nevertheless ...... for
>> >(experienced) Windows-programmers it is well-known that the
>> >QueryPerformanceCounter() is not suitable for fine-grained performance
>> >measurements, as it has been implemented in a circumspect way, and,
>> >according to some reports, can take more than 1000 CPU cycles to complete
>on
>> >some hardware. Ordinary Windows applications does not suffer from this
>> >problem though, as they rarely use this function in production code. So
>that
>> >QueryPerformanceCounter() takes considerably more time to complete than
>it's
>> >Linux equivalent, is not necessarily proof that Linux will outperform NT
>on
>> >a general basis.
>>
>> They were neither measuring, nor has anyone claimed, that this
>> measurement alone is necessarily proof of anything.
>
>If you trace this thread back to the beginning, you will find that someone
>did exactly that.
Then they were speaking rhetorically. If the whole debate is premised
on quibbling over wording, then the point remains the same. If you
didn't realize that you cannot use any specific point to prove anything,
then that's fine. I'm sure the guy who said it was already aware of
that. In fact, the only people I know who even PRETEND not to know it
are the wintrolls, trying desperately to insist that someone else
doesn't know it.
[...]
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]>
Subject: Re: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:58:16 GMT
Said [EMAIL PROTECTED] in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001
>On Tue, 08 May 2001 16:04:53 GMT, T. Max Devlin
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 20:35:54
>>>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>>>
>>>> DirectX *sucks*.
>>>
>>>About as useless a statement as "Linux sucks". _How_ exactly does DirectX
>>>suck?
>>
>>If I knew that, I'd have to be working for Microsoft and have a brain
>>the size of a planet. All I know is it sucks. The real question isn't
>>how it sucks, but why it sucks. If I knew that, I'd be working for Id
>>and driving a Ferrari.
>
>So in other words you don't know what you are talking about and have
>no facts to back up your foolish statement?
No, in other words, YOU don't know what you're talking about, and have
no facts to back up your foolish statements. But I would require
magical powers to convince you of that, obviously, in the face of your
purposeful ignorance and great fondness for criminal behavior.
--
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: Linux has one chance left.........
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:58:17 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 20:32:22
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>> So in other words you don't know what you are talking about and have
>> no facts to back up your foolish statement?
>
>That appears to be the size of it.
And here V had the naivete to say you weren't a troll, Pete. You should
feel stupid.
--
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: Linux disgusts me
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:58:28 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 20:18:06
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>Curious. If it is so trivial, why is not the default on various distros?
>>
>> Because they are various distros. Distros are not produced for specific
>> hardware systems, so the distro producer does not deal with this kind of
>> thing. But OEMs are not distro producers; they do not currently perform
>> extensive configuration unless they are a premium VAR of some kind.
>> (And even then you would be shocked at the lack of effort made towards
>> producing 'clean' systems.) This is a result, you guessed it, of
>> Microsoft's illegal anti-competitive practices (it isn't necessarily
>> *Microsoft's* competitors that get screwed by this stuff, you know; it's
>> just 'competitors') which have allowed only OEMs with razor-thin margins
>> to maintain a presence in the marketplace. Sure, Linux OEMs could do
>> this kind of configuration, and put out the prettiest fucking systems
>> you've ever seen a computer buy for Christmas. But that ain't so easy
>> when you have to compete with Windows OEMs, you see.
>>
>> The Linux OEMs can't become distro producers for similar reasons; that
>> would make them as direct a target for Microsoft as Sun or IBM or Apple
>> are.
>
>What has 'font deuglification' and that no distro actually does it yet have
>to do with Microsoft's monopoly?
Were you somehow unable to read the text you quoted?
--
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: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:58:44 GMT
Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 20:41:17
>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
>> Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sun, 06 May 2001 21:05:12
>> [...]
>> >Max, I've already corrected you on this in another thread. I have a
>> >Word for Windows 1.0 manual and it says it requires Windows 2.03 to run.
>> >It DID NOT ship with Windows 3.0. Got it?
>>
>> Greg, I've already explained why this "correction" has essentially zero
>> cogency. Word for Windows 1.0 did not "ship with" Windows 3.0, it was
>> simply not released until Windows 3.0 was, regardless of whether MS was
>> hoping to release it prior to that. Get it?
>>
>> >> >> >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.
>> >>
>> >> I can't honestly believe you're that stupid, and I know you'll admit to
>> >> being a troll, so I think you're just lying. Not even you think this
>> >> 'evidence' says any 'otherwise'.
>> >
>> >How much more evidence do you need?
>>
>> Well, I'm still waiting for *any* evidence. I never claimed that MS
>> started developing it until after Win3, so the mistake in the beta and
>> the announcement of support for vaporware are hardly very shocking,
>> unless you've literally never had any knowledge of Microsoft throughout
>> its history.
>>
>> I'm mean, *really*; a freaking ANECDOTE would be more convincing, "Yea,
>> Max, I remember clearly using Word for Windows on Windows 2!" You don't
>> even have that much, though; just a couple of extremely trivial glitches
>> in Microsoft's documentation. Shocker.
>
>How's this Max? Microsoft Windows 3.0 shipped in 1990 and my copy of
>the Word for Windows 1.0 manual is copyrighted in 1988. That's two
>years difference Max. This is such a trivial issue but you seem unable
>to admit to even the slightest error. Why is that?
No, that is a bit more convincing. Still, it doesn't prove to me
something I know is untrue; MS Word for Windows 1.0 was simply not
commercially available before Windows 3.0. Get a price list, maybe, and
I'll admit that my experience is mistaken. I was teaching Word for DOS
4 & 5, as well as Mac Word, at the time, so I'm pretty sure I'd know.
>If you want I can email you scans of the relevent pages...
No, I believe the facts. I just don't believe your interpretation. I
didn't claim that the screen shot didn't show the 'wrong' scrollbars, or
the 'Win 2.0 or better' label, did I?
--
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: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:58:59 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 9 May 2001 06:32:36
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
>> BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!
>
>
>Ridicule is generally made use of to laugh men out of virtue and good
>sense, by attacking everything praiseworthy in human life.
> --Joseph Addison
Oh, PUH-Leeze. The only thing I attack is stupidity, ignorance, and
Microsoft; you're calling these things praiseworthy? Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha!
--
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: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:59:01 GMT
Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 02:57:42
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said Tom Wilson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001 05:03:25
>> >"Ayende Rahien" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:9d4a9e$dlo$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >>
>> >> "Daniel Johnson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >> news:XIeJ6.7026$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> > "T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> > > Define "like other DOS programs".
>> >> >
>> >> > Programs that use DOS services to do their
>> >> > thing. You know, programs written to *DOS's*
>> >> > API.
>> >>
>> >> DOS didn't have API.
>> >
>> >The int 21h calls were an "API" of sorts, I guess.
>>
>> Yes, BIOS is "like an OS", and interrupts are "like API calls". Only it
>> isn't, and they're not. Get it?
>
>10h was BIOS. 21h is where the core of MS-DOS resided and those routines
>were what any program wishing to interface to the "OS" had to access.
>Particularly if you were screwing with the un- or - almost documented
>functions like "Reload Transient" and the "List-Of-Lists". Technically,
>those calls constituted an API as applications definitely had to utilize
>those interrupt to access DOS's functionality (or lack thereof).
>
>Get it?
Yes, I got it. Like is said; it may be "like an API", only it isn't.
Not everything you can metaphysically imagine works "just like" an API
is an API. In fact, none of them are, except APIs. Your logic would
simply call any technical specification 'an API'. That's bogus. Get
it?
--
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: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:59:13 GMT
Said Daniel Johnson in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> I know that you are trolling, and my grammar is fine, thanks. Sorry
>you
>> >> couldn't follow the pronouns; try reading it over again, slowly, until
>> >> you figure it out.
>> >
>> >Perhaps you mean "with IBM" or "in IBM's case"?
>>
>> The latter, though it is unnecessary; my grammar is correct. "IBM" is a
>> company, itself an abstraction, so anything "in IBM" is "in IBM's case".
>
>Most dubious. But I suppose that admitting to
>a typo is beyond you.
Bwah-ha-ha-ha-ha.
[...]
--
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: Wed, 09 May 2001 14:59:24 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May 2001
[...]
>Actually, he's completely right. I have here a copy of PC Magazine dated
>January 1991 which talks about the split between IBM and MS and clearly
>states that MS was working on "Portable OS/2" which was to be called OS/2
>3.0 while IBM was working on OS/2 2.0.
Just on the odd chance you aren't aware of it, Erik, nobody with any
brains who has been in the industry for more than a couple years would
believe jack-shit that PC Magazine said about such a thing.
--
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
******************************
