Linux-Advocacy Digest #361, Volume #34 Wed, 9 May 01 11:13:02 EDT
Contents:
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: Windows makes good coasters (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Windows makes good coasters (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature" (T. Max Devlin)
Re: bank switches from using NT 4 (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux Users...Why? ("~�~")
Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software (Roberto Alsina)
Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 15:01:41 GMT
Said billwg in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 16:32:09 GMT;
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> The fact is, some of the people who read the book who did like
>> Microsoft, don't anymore.
>>
>A Tempest in a Teapot. Pro-MS people might skim it and curse the authors
Bullshit from a Troll.
[...]
--
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 15:01:47 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 9 May 2001 06:40:04
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>> The fact is, some of the people who read the book who did like
>> Microsoft, don't anymore.
>
>No one would buy this book who already had an opinion about it, you know.
No, I don't know. Doh!
--
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 15:01:55 GMT
Said Ayende Rahien in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 9 May 2001 06:37:14
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> 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!
>
>You don't, no wonder.
Yes, no wonder. You'll notice, I'm sure, the rather glaring mistake you
have made. "AN MCSE" != "anyone".
>No, when an MCSE can't get monopoly crapware to work right, its
>Microsoft's fault, not the MCSE. Likewise, when an administrator cannot
>get Linux to work right, it is the administrator's fault BECAUSE LINUX
>IS NOT A MONOPOLY. Get it?
> -- T. Max Devlin
--
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 15:01:58 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
>> >"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> >> You are happy your trolling is frustrating him, because you are an
>> >> immature child. The rest of your position and statements are just
>> >> posturing.
>> >
>> >... And loving it! :D
>>
>> I know, I know. I just wish others could enjoy it as much as you do,
>> you know?
>
>C'mon. Put yer back into it. Grit your teeth and enjoy it! :D
I always enjoy spanking trolls much more than leaving them to prove
their stupidity in their own slow, drawn-out way. I was talking about
*other* people, Daniel. Can't you 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]>
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 15:02:03 GMT
Said billwg in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 16:23:34 GMT;
>No you don't recall correctly. They're still very much around and changed
>their name last year to Previo. They're still in the business of suing
>everyone for compression algorithm patent infringement.
>
>If you're not worried about destroying your myths, read about the original
>settlement in the Dr. Dobbs Journal at
>http://www.ddj.com/articles/1994/9455/9455c/9455c.htm.
Thanks. The info in DDJ wouldn't interest me, nor would I take its
technical veracity as proof of its correct interpretation of the legal
points.
--
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 15:02:07 GMT
Said "JS PL" <hi everybody!> in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> We have no way of knowing if Windows is "popular" with anyone. We only
>> know it is common.
>
>Yes we do have a way of knowing:
>Popularity with ME released
>http://cws.internet.com/polls/poll31.html
[...]
BWAH-HA-HA-HA-HA-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 15:02:12 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]...
>> >> Quotes from customers aren't enough?
>> >
>> >Well, Rick says that there are quotes from "M$
>> >executives" to support this.
>>
>> No, Judge Jackson says there are quotes from MS executives to support
>> this.
>
>Jackson isn't here to argue about it. I daresay Jackson
>thinks the quotes support *his* conclusions, rather
>than Ricks.
Ricks "interpretation" WAS Jackson's. Doh!
[...]
--
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: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:02:25 GMT
Said Steve Sheldon in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May 2001 22:05:24
>"Chad Everett" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> You might as well complain about the inadequate amount of storage
>> capacity on a hard drive cause the last time you used one was
>> 1996. Notice where 1996 is in the following:
>>
>> Linux kernel history:
>> ---------------------
>> Pre-1.0: 1991 - 1994
>> version 1.x.xx: 1994 - 1996*
>> version 2.0.xx - 2.1.xx: 1996 - 1999
>> version 2.2.xx: 1999 - present
>> version 2.4.0 - January 4, 2001
>> version 2.4.1 - January 29, 2001
>> version 2.4.2 - February 21, 2001
>> version 2.4.3 - March 29, 2001
>> version 2.4.4 - April 27, 2001
>
>Yes, and notice how little has really changed... Version numbers don't tell
>the whole story.
>
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: alt.linux.sux,alt.linux,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Windows makes good coasters
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:02:27 GMT
Said Steve Sheldon in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May 2001 22:13:36
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>> Well, things get dicey when the updates have such a well-deserved
>> reputation for trashing systems. Nobody with any brains, for instance,
>> runs SP6 at all, and many refuse to move beyond SP4, because SP5 screws
>> things up in their installations. Linux, of course, doesn't have this
>> problem.
>
>Nobody with any brains right now would run anything but SP6a.
Yea, sure, right.
--
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 15:02:32 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 08 May 2001 20:40:13
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>Last I heard, the current court case was in favour of Microsoft.
>>
>> No, they currently stand convicted on three counts. The pundit's
>> perception of the oral arguments have no real meaning in legal terms.
>
>So what happened in the appeal court? I'm losing track here, it's gone very
>quiet over here (across the pond).
Over here, too. We should hear the decision by next month, I think.
>The EU is currently looking at picking up the reins of impaling Microsoft
>if it all dies a death in the USA.
The most the EU has the power to do is fine them. That doesn't mean
shit to a monopoly.
--
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: alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Double whammy cross-platform worm
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:02:55 GMT
Said Jan Johanson in alt.destroy.microsoft on 9 May 2001 00:15:29 -0500;
>"Chris Ahlstrom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> A Solaris worm that defaces IIS Web server pages:
>>
>> http://www.computerworld.com/cwi/story/0,1199,NAV47_STO60354,00.html
>
>To the uneducated blindly hating, lets all read along together eh?
>
>"CERT said the worm enters a Solaris system by using a 2-year-old buffer
>overflow vulnerability and then targets IIS-based Web servers via a security
>hole that was uncovered seven months ago. Software patches that are supposed
>to fix the problems have long been available from both Sun and Microsoft. "
>
>Hmm... so this "new" worm uses a 2 year old Solaris vulnerability combined
>with a 7 month old IIS vulnerability both of which have LONG had a complete
>fix available for.
>
>So, it's not ANY suprise at all that we also read:
>"Denis Zenkin, a spokesman at Moscow-based antivirus software vendor
>Kaspersky Lab International Ltd., today said he wasn't aware of any
>incidents involving the sadmind/IIS worm. The worm could turn out to be
>"merely another entry in CERT's virus encyclopedia," he added. "
>
>And equally it's no surprise that the blindly anti-MS haters simply see MS
>mentioned in some shady light and immediate dispatch what little brains they
>have left to out mongolia and announce this worm as if it were some sign of
>a MS weakness...
>
>weird...
>
>how this is even news suprises me... I would expect The Register to run this
>sort of crap...
I'd expect a lot more people to write this sort of crap. That's what
happens when you're a criminal organization; bad word of mouth because
of outrageous prices and shoddy products, and pretty soon "popular
wisdom" has you listed as untrustworthy! Go figure!
--
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: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:03:18 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May 2001
[...]
>Who said anything about simple? The fact of the matter is, Navajo was just
>another encryption mechanism which was uncrackable because the crackers
>didn't know the language or the language constructs.
No, Erik, that isn't the fact at all. The fact of the matter is that
Navajo was a natural language, not "just another encryption mechanism".
Yes, it was purely and entirely obfuscation, the fact that the crackers
didn't know the language or its constructs or words or grammar that made
it 'secure'. You've obviously misunderstood the issue, and confabulated
it with your rudimentary understanding of cryptology.
>You're making my point, in that the size of the the key is irrelevant when
>the actual encoding and decoding methods are completely unknown and
>unguessable.
You're missing the point, which is that the use of Navajo was a very
special (and temporary) case. It certainly doesn't at all resemble your
childishly simplistic "munging codes". These things are not secure,
Erik.
>> Again, all of your ideas about codes and encryption are quite valid,
>> Erik, up until the computer was invented. Computers can munge through
>> ANY possible type of substitution/mangling encryption, with consummate
>> ease. It is ONLY the mathematically based encryption schemes using
>> large primes as factors which are in any way 'secure' these days.
>
>Until someone figures out a mathematical way to solve it. If Navajo were a
>lost language that no records existed for, it would be impossible to crack
>unless you had ways to guess at data. For instance, ancient egyptian was
>able to be guessed at based on the huge amounts of pictures and other items
>that accompanied it.
Yes, you need a Rosetta Stone, as its called. You won't find one for
Navajo, but you seem to presume that this 'impenetrability' is
consistent with perfect comprehensibility, and that seems a fatally
flawed idea. Navajo *children* learned Navajo. You really think it
would be impossible to 'crack the code'? Do you think natural language
can be decoded mathematically?
>> They still would have had trouble with Navajo, actually, but then they
>> still have trouble with any natural language, don't they? Yet more
>> proof that natural language is not simply an encoding scheme. You'll
>> note that, even though it was successful, using unknown languages for
>> security was abandoned. It isn't really very effective, except as a
>> temporary trick of misdirection. It is simply more 'security through
>> obfuscation', but you can only fool humans; you can't fool computers.
>
>A computer is only as good as the data it has to work with (and the
>programmers that program it).
Indeed, and programs which are better than any munging have made your
silly idea about codes obsolete for well more than a decade, I'd
imagine.
--
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: How to hack with a crash, another Microsoft "feature"
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:03:31 GMT
Said Erik Funkenbusch in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Tue, 8 May 2001
>"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Mon, 07 May 2001 20:25:59
>> [...]
>> >Lets put it this way... if Eric used a 4-bit key and did everything he
>> >says he would do, NSA would have it deciphered in less than a minute.
>>
>> The NSA? Sure, 'less than a minute' is accurate, but 'a few
>> milliseconds' is more precise.
>
>Sure. If you are so confident, i'll give you an encoded bit of data. I'll
>give you a week to figure out what it is. It uses a 1 bit key, and the keys
>value is 1.
Give it to the NSA, lamer. 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
Subject: Re: bank switches from using NT 4
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:03:34 GMT
Said Greg Cox in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Wed, 09 May 2001 06:27:30
>In article <9d84g7$r4u$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED] says...
[...]
>> Practically *anything* is better than WMP.
>
>Just for grins I fired up WMP7 running under Win2k on my PII-450 with
>256MB memory. According to the task manager it sucks up less than 5
>percent of the cpu and uses 3.5 MB of system memory when minimized.
>When not minimized it uses about 20 percent of the CPU and 5.5MB of
>memory. It changes tracks just fine for me...
Holy christ! Talk about a fat bloated pig of a program! Did you say 5
percent CPU on a PII-450 when its *minimized*??? Ouch.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 9 May 2001 15:07:14 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 09 May 2001 14:57:14 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
I say it makes no difference because whether the modified work is still the
same program or is a derived work of the program, they still need a
license.
What difference do you say it makes?
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: "~�~" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux Users...Why?
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:07:17 GMT
> Then in 1995, dad decided to purchase an IBM-Compatible computer, P75 w/
> 8MB of Ram, 850Mhz hard disk, 1 Meg video memory, and an SB16 SoundCard,
> I thought it was awsome, 10 times faster than the Amiga, a huge hard
> disk (I thought 850MB was huge compared to what the Amiga had). Then
> the day it arrived, I hooked it all up, and booted the computer. I took
> atleast 20-30 secs to load, and I sat back and thought that it was kind
> of strange a new computer booting slower than my 7 year old Amiga 500.
> Anyway, I moved on from there. Then I installed some applications.
> Office 95, Corel Draw 5, and before I knew it, my hard disk was almost
> full! I thought, "how come 2 applications took up that much room?",
Because it didn't, that's why.
I'm assuming windows 95 as office 95 wasn't a windows 3.x application.
Windows 95 installed - 80 to 130 mb's. Depends on partition scheme and
options.
Office 95 installed - 75 to 130 mb's. See above.
Corel 5, I'm not sure as I've never used it. I can't imagine it using more
than 100mb's.
So, to recap, we have at this point less than 400 mb's of disk space using
more than the maximums from above.
800 mb's of disk space (formatted) - 400 leaves a half full disk. How is
this, and I quote you, "...my hard disk was almost full"? Dubious to say the
very least.
> Kindwords used only 3 disks, and Fusion paint only used one! then I
> thought, well, that must mean there are more features etc etc. So I
> carried on, anyway, I then started to get these BSOD's, and I couldn't
> work out why? I was only using one app at a time, when printing, I did
> nothing in the back ground, however, at that time I know nothing of
> Linux.
Funny how it's always linux zealots who have these frequent BSOD's.
I've used every version of windows since 3.0, and have had maybe 5 or 6 blue
screens in 8 years.
Imagine that.
>Then in 1996-97 I purchased a PCPlus magazine that included
> Redhat 5.2, I partitioned the hard disk, and proceeded to install it
> (remembering to print out all the system information from Windows).
> Once installed it, I rebooted and everything worked, ye ha! now, I then
Well, just as your windows experiences aren't the de facto, neither is your
RH 5.2 experience.
I *purchased* 5.2. It left core files all over the place, used more ram
(afterstep WM) than my NT box at the time, setting up menus had to be done
via config files as most of the things I checked during installtion didn't
appear on said menus. Getting emacs and pine to work with my pop3 account
via my isp was an exercise in pure frustration. The Netscape 4x version that
shipped with 5.2 was a broken mess.
I could go on but it serves no purpose.
> booted back into Windows and downloaded KDE, and installed it, with in a
> few hours of downloading and installing, I was online with my new Lintel
> machine, 4 years, and 6 distro's later I am now happy with the set up,
> been using SuSE for a year, Wordperfect Suite for a couple of days, and
> everything is sweet.
I'm glad you're happy with it. I enjoy Linux as well. Funny though how I
catch crap in here for using a distro (RH 6.2) that really isn't that old at
all, but you and others will shout about the MS upgrade mill constantly. My
Linux box is an older Socket 8 200 with 96 mb's of ram. RH 6.2 is slow
enough, why would I want to bog the machine down even more with Mandrake 8?
Then I hear all this ballyhoo about xiaiman, or whatever this latest windows
killer is called. I go and check it out. The mail client is a blatant rip
off of Outlook Express, only done badly, right down to the 'outlook bar'
motif. All this whining and bitching about this very windows client, then
when someone copies it (attempts to) and the Linux brethren have at it, it's
the best thing since sliced bread.
Anyone see a pattern here in regards to double standards? It's downright
scary.
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Crossposted-To: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
Date: 9 May 2001 15:09:19 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Wed, 09 May 2001 14:57:41 GMT, T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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".
Perhaps you don't understand the meaning of "probably" as in "probably
does not seem to copyright law". In this case it implies the statement
is simply an informed guess.
> [...remainder snipped, only because I am pressed for time...]
Whatever.
>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.
How was it, oh yeah "if it's true and it can't be wrong it's useless",
said T. Max.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Linux is paralyzed before it even starts
Date: Wed, 09 May 2001 15:09:31 GMT
On Wed, 09 May 2001 14:57:06 GMT, T. Max Devlin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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.
Why aren't you using PAN instead of Agent?
Flatfish
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
