Linux-Advocacy Digest #651, Volume #34 Sun, 20 May 01 16:13:02 EDT
Contents:
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop (Roberto Alsina)
Jan Johanson and racism. (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Charlie Ebert)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Linux beats Win2K (again) (T. Max Devlin)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Rick)
Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft! (Dan)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:18:04 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > Daniel Johnson wrote:
> > > > The TRS 80s didnt need an upgrade. They ran CP/M out of the box.
> > >
> > > Hmmm? No, I don't think CP/M was included. Perhaps
> > > you mean it was cheaper on the TRS-80 than,
> > > the Apple II?
> >
> > I dont care what you -think-. Try doing some research. TRS 80's didnt
> > need an upgrade. They could run CP/M out of the box. Apple IIs couldnt.
> > And dont tell me what I mean.
>
> Apple IIs could get CP/M as an expensive add on. You
> had to put a Z80 in though.
>
> TRS-80s came with TRS-DOS, not CP/M.
>
> Not that it matters; a TRS-80 with CP/M is
> still junk. :D
>
Really? A TRS 80 running dBase was junk? Interesting.
> [snip]
> > > I guess that means you don't have a clue
> > > where to find this review of yours. Or
> > > you just made it all up.
> >
> > You guess wrong. You go do some research, unless you are afraid to
> > uncover facts that challenge your notions.
>
> I must say, you views on the superiority
> of the Apple II are quite, um, unusual.
>
> I thought you were a Mac advocate,
> actually.
>
Thats what you get when you try to think. You jump to conclusions.
> [snip]
> > > How did Seatle Computer allegedly
> > > get source code for Digitial Research's
> > > CP/M?
> >
> > I dont know. Ask IBM. They are the ones that made the payment.
>
> Sounds like they were worried about
> a nuisance suit, then.
>
They were worried about the CP/M code in m$-DO$.
> [snip]
> > > Oh, I rather think it was a minority. Remember, back
> > > then Macintosh apps did not require so much
> > > memory. Just 1 meg was a lot.
> >
> > Oh, you rather think? Not good enough. Did you own one? Did you hanag
> > with people that did? No? I thinught not.
>
> I hardly consider you an authority, either.
>
I doubt you consider anyone an authority on anything, but yourself. I
have experience with Apple II (having owned and used several). You do
not. I have generated reports on appleworks. You have not. I have the
manual and the app and a working Apple II. You do not.
> [snip]
> > > You seem determined to reduce the scope of
> > > the discussion, but I don't see how excluding
> > > better computers than PCs helps you.
> >
> > We are discussing microcomputers. Minis and mainframes are another
> > thing. You cant compare the 3, especially in the timeframes under
> > discussion. You merely use them to move goalposts or to try to confuse
> > the conversation.
>
> Sure, I can compare them. Sometimes it's
> even instructive. In this case all I meant
> to show you was that programmers in 1980
> did know that there was something better
> possible.
>
We are discussing microcomputers. Minis and mainframes are another
thing. You cant compare the 3, especially in the timeframes under
discussion. You merely use them to move goalposts or to try to confuse
the conversation
> They didn't have it on their PCs yet, but
> they knew it was possible.
>
Didnt have what on their PCs?
> [snip]
> > > I guess you don't know much about
> > > it either, then.
> >
> > You guess wrong. AGAIN. I have the app. I have the manual. I have data
> > files. You dont have jack. Including any knowledge whatsoever about
> > Appleworks.
>
> You aren't able to support your own claims terribly
> well, I notice.
>
Take your head out of the sand.
> [snip]
> > > > No. Not the best selling for Apple IIs. The best selling software.
> > >
> > > This I do not believe for a second.
> >
> > Too bad. Its true.
>
> Got a cite for it?
>
Why should I spend my time looking for this, when you will just
disregard it.?
http://apple2history.org/a/ah19.html
"When it first appeared on the market, AppleWorks started at number 2 on
Softalk's top thirty list. It moved to the number one spot in Apple
sales by the following month, and stayed there for a long time. By the
end of 1984, AppleWorks had moved into the number one spot in monthly
retail software sales for all computers, overtaking the MS-DOS
best-seller Lotus 1-2-3 (a spreadsheet program with graphics and
rudimentary word processing capabilities)."
Feel free to look other places.
> [snip]
> > > "The most advanced piece of software of its time"?
> > >
> > > I'm trying to show you how the computer industry
> > > advanced, and how the PC was part of it.
> >
> > It seems to me you are comparing todays micros withtt he micros of the
> > time and calling the old machines shit becasue of what we can do today.
>
> No, I'm really comparing the PC of 1981 with the
> Apple II of 1981.
>
Oh. well then the PC loses. Too bad. So Sad. ... NOT!!
> > I have worked with each generation of micro. I can see how they have
> > progressed.
>
> But you don't see how the PC was better
> than the then-current Apple II+?
>
No.
> > > The Apple IIs time was the late 70's. It
> > > was in many ways eclipsed before the PC
> > > even came out by other 8 bit machines.
> >
> > NO. It wasnt.
>
> Sure it was. The C64 had much better
> sound and graphics, for instance.
>
> [snip]
> > > You really believe that?
> > >
> > > What's the Apple II equivalent of dBase?
> > >
> > When did dBase for the PC come out and did it run on a stock 5150
> > (hopefully Ive got the model number right)?
>
> It came out in 1981, and it had better have run on a
> stick 5150, 'cuz that was all you had back then.
>
Actually, I believe Dbase II was out BEFORE the PC came out and was
ported to it. Now, I wonder what it was running on? CP/M machines maybe?
Apple IIs with SoftCards, maybe? Hmmmm?
I did take off on the PC though.
> It was very fast turnaround, that. dBase II was
> an extension of an earlier 8-bit product
> (not "dBase I", but "the Vulcan Database").
>
Thats intersting. I was under the impression that Aston-Tate was founded
to sell dBAse II, which was written by Wayne Ratliff.
> This earlier product wasn't real successful,
> but dBase II was. Things like databases
> really need some space to get to the point
> of being useful, you see.
>
IIRC, people were programming in dBAse BEFORE the PC came out.
> [snip]
> > > The PDP-11 and System/360 were both old hat
> > > by 1980. If you insist I can go find out what
> > > models DEC and IBM were selling then.
> >
> > Stop comparing minis and mainframes with micros. They are in no way
> > comparable.
>
> I'm telling you that programmers at that
> time could see for themselves the inadequacies
> of the 8-bit machines.
>
Yeah, thats why no one wrote nay apps for them, did they?
> [snip]
> > > > What was that?
> > >
> > > The collapse of the Apple II line. By the
> > > time the IIgs came out, Apple had already
> > > committed to the Macintosh, and
> > > wasn't about to let the Apple II steal the
> > > limelight back.
> >
> > Well, at least you get something half-way right.
>
> Which half? :D
>
> [snip- why the IIgs failed]
> > > But to really succeed it would have had to be
> > > avaiable earlier, I think.
> > >
> >
> > You... think?
>
> Hey.. it's been known to happen! :D
>
Look. More grinning idiots.
> [snip]
> > > There were quite a few things in between. :D
> > >
> > > But you are quite right. People bouth Apple IIs to run
> > > particular apps, VisiCalc perhaps the most famous
> > > amoung them.
> > >
> > > Developers, however, didn't write to Apple IIs
> > > because VisiCalc had been written there; they
> > > switched to the PC pretty quickly really.
> >
> > The entrance of IBM ptpretty much legitimized the personal computer in
> > business.
>
> To some extent. IBM is like that. But PCs had been
> used in businesses before IBM came along.
>
And which PCs were those? TRS 80s and Apple IIs.
> Most of the software available for the early
> PCs was very like the stuff on Apple IIs, but
> big, faster, and better in sundry ways.
>
yeah. Right.
> [snip]
> > > > If only an 8 bit computer would benefit from an inegrated program, why
> > > > did micro$oft develop and -continue- to market micro$oft work$?
> > >
> > > They wanted an entry in the integrated desktop software
> > > market. Works frankly was always a lousy one though.
> >
> > In your very biased opinion. It worked very well for me.
>
> Er.. let me get this straight.
>
> You are accusing me of an *anti-Microsoft* bias.
>
> Is that right?
>
See? You cant think straight. Dolt, you are obviously biased agains m$
work$ in the above statement.
> [snip]
> > > Yes; that was a the next step. That was what products
> > > like ClarisWorks did; they provided integration, not just
> > > easy switching between different types of documents.
> >
> > Clarisworks didnt do much Appleworks didnt do, except Clarisworks worked
> > in a GUI.
>
> You really should try ClarisWorks sometime; it did
> a lot of stuff AppleWords didn't do. It did graphics moderately
> well and had really groundbreaking intermodule integration.
>
You really should quit puttin your foot in your mouth. I HAVE used
Clarisworks. As I said above, it didnt really do much more than
Appleworks, except in a GUI environment. You just said the same thing.
You really are ignorant of Appleworks, arent you?
> It was doing OLE 2.0-type stuff years before OLE
> existed.
>
Clarisworks MAY have been able ot actively update spreadsheets and
reports embeeded in other docs, but I dont rmember it.
> It was hot stuff.
>
So was Appleworks, you just refuse to acknowledge it.
> [snip]
> > > Oh? I have used Works but a little, so I'm not too
> > > confident in my knowledge of it, but my impression
> > > was that Works had very little integration actually. One
> > > of the reasons it was such a dog.
> >
> > Your impression, as usual, is wrong. It had a great deal of integration.
> > Thats why it was caleed an "integrated" app.
>
> I suspect that your idea of "a great deal of integration" is
> essentially "what AppleWorks did"; that's setting the bar
> pretty low.
>
How would you know? You never used it. I did. I also have used
Clarisworks on Mac and Intel - and Office.
> [snip]
> > > You could do it on IBM PCs.
> >
> > This part cant really continue to be discusse, becasue you continue to
> > remove the preceding conversation.
>
> That's okay, it's been content-free
> for some time anyway. :D
>
> [snip]
> > > > Prove it. Prove to me it was integrated... as I sit here with my
> > > > Appleworks manual, and the disks, and an Apple IIgs in the living
> room.
> > > > prove to me you one bit of correct information on Apple IIs in general
> > > > and Appleworks specifically.
> > >
> > > Ah. An Apple IIgs. No wonder you have an exagerated
> > > idea of what the Apple IIs that the IBM PC was up
> > > against could do.
> >
> > I had an Apple IIe BEFORE the GS. I did MORE on the IIe with Appleworks
> > than I did with the GS. In fact, for along while, I just used the GS as
> > a souped up IIe. wait.. let me guess, you are now going to make some
> > disparaging remarks having no basis in reality...
>
> No. I'm just trying to fine some explaination for
> your idolization of the Apple II series other
> than "Rick is insane".
>
The Apple II was a great machine. You fail to give it credit for the
what it accomplished, actually what Wozniak accomplished, in its time.
You snub Appleworks and at the same time you show an absolute ignorance
of the program.
> "Rick is thinking of the IIgs" would seem
> to work.
>
I said Apple II. I never said Apple II gs until I mentioned what Apple
II I own NOW.
> > > The IIgs was a rather later development; it was
> > > a much better computer that the other IIs, and
> > > comparable to the IBM PC. Better in some
> > > ways, even- it could access more memory
> > > directly.
> >
> > I knew it. You are a dolt.
>
> It could. It used segments too, but it's segments
> were laid out end-to-end, not overlapping;
> the same numbre of segments covered more
> address space.
>
> Its clock speed was its real achilles heel.
>
# mhz was pretty good for a II. IIRC people have gotten the IIgs up to
12ish mhz.
> > > So, perhaps you are refering to AppleWorks GS?
> >
> > No. I was referring to Appleworks. Maybe you didnt get the reference to
> > the author, Rupert Lissner? He wrote Appleworks, not Appleworks GS.
>
> Just checking... to be on the safe side.
>
> [snip]
> > > C64's were the best game machines (the 1981 vintage
> > > PCs had terrible graphics).
> > >
> > > But other than that the PCs were unbeatable;
> > > they were the next generation.
> >
> > The PC was unbeatable because it came from IBM
>
> That was good and bad; it meant some of the
> stupider suits would trust them more than a
> computer from a bunch of hippies, but it also
> meant it was rather expensive compared to its
> competitors.
>
It legitimized the market.
> [snip]
> > > You put RAM chips in. That's very nice. But *using*
> > > that RAM was a big problem. AppleWorks did, but
> > > most programs didn't.
> >
> > Well, well. First you say Appleworks DIDNT use the RAM, now you say it
> > does. Well, which do you "believe"?
>
> I did not at any time say that AppleWords did not use
> your RAM, Rick. You know that as well as I do.
>
> I'm telling you what a pain it was to use
> bank-switched RAM. This kind of thing
> means developers go find a better computer
> to write software for.. and the computer
> with the bank-switching dies for lack
> of apps, in due course.
>
> [snip]
> > > > Again with the LATER products. What is it with you? So, the Wright
> > > > brothers' plane was shit becasue a 747 is better?
> > >
> > > Yes, the Wright brothers plane *was* shit,
> > > thank you very much. :D
> >
> > You are an idiot.
>
> Well then *you* fly to Toledo in the thing. :D
>
> [snip]
> > > > it was the best rocket -at the time-.
> > >
> > > And it was shit. Really, being the best rocket
> > > of its time doesn't make it any more effective.
> > >
> > > Same with the Apple II. Saying that in 1978
> > > it was the best thing going is true but doesn't
> > > make the product any better.
> >
> > Well, then, by your definition, your precious PC's are shit. They cant
> > do what mainframes can do.
>
> Think so? I rather think they can.
>
Impossible. It is painfully obvious you dont think.
> What do you think mainframes can do that
> PCs cannot?
you are the self annointed computer expert. Tell us what differentiates
a mainframe from a microcomputer... if you can.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To:
alt.destroy.microsoft,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Microsoft - WE DELETE YOU!
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 19:15:54 GMT
In article <3b08063e$0$37316$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Jan Johanson wrote:
>
>"Matthew Gardiner" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>news:9e5usm$ib0$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> > Not on W2K - what OS do you use that has that fear?
>>
>> Win2k, running Netscape 6. Then second time, Win2k running Windows
>> Mediaplayer, copying some stuff from my USB Zip 100 Drive to my hard disk,
>> and surfing the net.
>>
>
>There is your problem - crappy netscape
>
>
Thanks for bringing that up Jan.
Mozilla is now the stock web browser amongst the next
Linux distribution release amongst all GNOME.
They aren't even going to ship Netscape now that
we have our own Web Browser.
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Roberto Alsina)
Subject: Re: Why Linux Is no threat to Windows domination of the desktop
Date: 20 May 2001 19:16:17 GMT
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Sat, 19 May 2001 11:15:27 -0700, GreyCloud <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> gotta love the Linux advocacy in this thread :)
>
>HAHA!! Maybe we need an app running under Linux that will evaluate the
>strengths of condoms??
Actually, you can already find one, in operation, in the CIDAL plant,
in Santa Fe, Argentina, the largest condom manufacturer of South
America.
--
Roberto Alsina
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Jan Johanson and racism.
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 19:24:27 GMT
Aside from the ususal Flat Fish you can find posting to COLA
with their rediculous arguments, we have Jan Johanson
and {HER?} rediculous arguments also.
Posts every 2-5 minutes for 18 straight hours a day 7 days
a week. You can mainly find Jan Johanson on COLA!
I figured she'd be a tremendous hit with the Rush fans!
And speaking of Rush fans, we now have MS crossposting
to COLA from RACISTS GROUPS! This is truely fun reading
and has much to do with Linux VS MS.
Until next time then! From the wild, wild world
COLA where Linux reighs, this is the PAID WINTROLL REPORT!
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Charlie Ebert)
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: Sun, 20 May 2001 19:27:16 GMT
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick wrote:
>Howard Johnson wrote:
>> {Howard Johnson's post completely deleted}
>
>No.
>
>--
>Rick
Howard Johnson,
That is the most completely rediculous thing I've ever heard!
--
Charlie
=======
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:32:15 -0400
Daniel Johnson wrote:
>
> "Rick" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> > > Yes, remotely possible.
> >
> > You always have to get your little bit in, dont you? You cant be the
> > slightest bit wrong in your mind, can you?
>
> I don't think I'm the only one doing
> that here. :D
>
> [snip]
> > > Yet you can't point out any particular
> > > FUD?
> >
> > I can. I have. You have refused to listen.
>
> I mean, any particular FUD against OS/2.
>
> [snip]
> > > Interested parties can consult www.google.com to
> > > discover if I did.
> >
> > The context should be within the conversation. besides, you cnat seem to
> > work google.
>
> I'm sure others here are smarter than me. :D
>
> [snip]
> > > I think that's a lot better than your
> > > approach of quoting *everything*, including
> > > the extensive parts that you do not respond
> > > to in any way. Saves bandwidth.
> >
> > I repeat -This particular thread of converstaion is without context,
> > becaues you have removed the context with your snips.
>
> I have removed part of the context. That's
> only garden variety netiquette.
>
> [snip]
> > > I disregard *interpretations* that would do that,
> > > yes.
> >
> > No. You disregard direct quotes from m$ execs. You do it repeatedly. I
> > gave you a direct quote form an m$ VP saying when error messages form
> > the AARD code came up, they were suppose dto plant doubt in the user's
> > minds about DR-DOS. You decided the exec couldnt have possibly meant wht
> > he said.
>
> He didn't *say* that. You *said* he said that, but he didn't,
> not in the quotes your proffered.
>
Microsoft Vice-President Brad Silverberg (talking about the AARD code)
"What the guy [using the computer] is supposed to do is feel
uncomfortable and when he has bugs, suspect the problem is Dr-DOS and
then go out and buy MS-DOS or decide not to take the risk for the other
machines he has to buy for in the office."
> It's like you think that if they *considered* doing
> it, then they must have done it, even though you
> know perfectly well that in fact they didn't.
>
They did do it. The messages came up in the beta. The code is present
but turned off in the shipping versoin.
> It's just really creepy.
Yes, you are.
>
> [snip]
> > > You just want to exclude the real reasons for
> > > Microsoft's success.
> >
> > Micro$oft stole the market. That is the real reason for micro$oft's
> > success.
>
> You prefer invective like that to understanding how
> MS did it.
>
I know ho m$ did it. First they lucked out with IBM. The as they grew
they used per-processor, budling and per system licenses to lock in
vendors and lock out competitors.
> [snip]
> > > Yes, even when you persistantly insist on only
> > > consider part of the story, the other bits of the
> > > store do remain relevant.
> >
> > Not when it is the user's point of view being discussed.
>
> You just won't consider even looking at any
> idea that might not support your point of
> view, will you?
>
We are dicussing microcomputers and end user. You keep trying to push
developers. Developers follow the money.
> [snip]
> > > > > And there *are* things that PCs could do
> > > > > in '87 that Apple IIs couldn't.
> > > >
> > > > Like...
> > >
> > > There's no Apple II product that can match
> > > dBase, for one thing.
> >
> > I repeat. When did dBase ship for the PC ?
>
> 1981.
When did it ship originally?
>
> > > It had no credible desktop publishing
> > > software, either. Ventural Publisher
> > > and Pagemaker both had PC versions
> > > by '87, did they not?
> >
> > Im not sure. If they did, they werent nearly effective as the Mac.
>
> Not nearly as effective. 640k really sucks.
>
But, -gasp-, I thought you said PCs could use more than 640K.
> > And besides, the II family was aimed at the home and
> > education market. The Mac was supposedly the business
> > machine.
>
> Sure, that is a reasonable marketing strategy, given
> the weaknesses of the Apple II versus either the
> PC or the Mac.
>
> [snip]
> > YOU are getting boring. You are nothing but twists and turns trying to
> > put micro$ in a good light.
> >
> > Aint happenin.
>
> In all fairness, you should recognize that I also
> do twists and turns to put Apple IIs in a bad
> light, sometimes. :D
Yes you do, you grinning idiot. Becasue you proceed from ignorance and
bias, as opposed to actually doing research.
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: T. Max Devlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 19:31:17 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 19 May 2001 19:34:56
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>You could put "Linux beats Win2K in terms of scalability". Instead you
>>>put the more inclusive version and added "again".
>>
>> Well, that's because the reality is that Win2K really really sucks.
>> Just for you, he didn't put that in the subject line, though.
>
>Probably because saying Win2K really really sucks is about as meaningless
>as saying Linux really really sucks.
"Probably"? No, not at all. Win2K is noticeably inferior technology,
which cannot provide any real competition to Linux.
>>>It's millions of desktop machines, 80% of which are running Windows of
>>>one form or another. That's the *real* world.
>>
>> In the real world, those are separate desktop machines, not one big
>> machine.
>
>Yes. Your point?
That you're full of shit. What further clarification is needed?
>> Nobody said a Windows computer was incapable of being a computer. Just
>> incapable of being reliable or high-performance.
>
>Yet 1 million desktop machines (which includes a large majority of Windows
>machines) produces one that is bigger than only one supercomputer in the
>world.
Metaphorically, maybe. In the real world, it's a stupid claim, without
purpose or meaning.
--
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 beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 19:31:18 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 19 May 2001 19:31:17
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>>>In one small percentage of the whole market. Not enough.
>>
>> I would guess that you're the kind of wintroll, Pete, who would claim
>> the world would be a better place if there was only one company
>> producing everything.
>
>And a committee deciding standards works, does it?
What do you mean "works"? Many consensus standards work very well, yes,
as evidenced by our conversation.
>Sometimes standards like
>that lags behind the market. So whilst the standards body is agonising (or
>arguing) over a small point, the market is moving onto something bigger and
>better.
>
>You are, as usual, putting words into my mouth.
Face it, even from this side of Usenet, I do a better job of it than you
do. By "the market", do you mean "the market", or "the 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]>
Subject: Re: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 19:31:18 GMT
Said Pete Goodwin in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 19 May 2001 19:20:25
>T. Max Devlin wrote:
>
>> A computer is a computer, and Linux is more advanced, technologically,
>> than Windows.
>
>Windows 9x maybe, but not so Windows 2000.
Yes, and XP to boot.
>Can Linux do 3D sound yet? It's built into Windows but not so easy on Linux.
"Can X do N yet?" is not a sign of technological advancement; that's all
just market grind bullshit. You gotta get it rock-solid
industrial-quality, first, THEN you can start wondering if W2K *might*
be somewhere near the technology standard of Linux.
--
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: Linux beats Win2K (again)
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 19:31:19 GMT
Said GreyCloud in comp.os.linux.advocacy on Sat, 19 May 2001 11:39:40
>Edward Rosten wrote:
>>
>> > I think the SETI program is a farce! No offense to you, but I often
>> > wonder what good does it do them? Radio waves travel a little slower
>> > than the speed of light.
>>
>> Radio waves travel *exactly* at the speed of light, since they're the
>> same stuff.
>>
>
>The National Bureua of Standards has measured it to be about 88% of c.
>It does not travel at the speed of light. Neither do electrons in a
>copper wire.
Through air, maybe; through the vacuum of space, it's a lot closer to
100%.
--
T. Max Devlin
*** The best way to convince another is
to state your case moderately and
accurately. - Benjamin Franklin ***
------------------------------
From: Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy
Subject: Re: Justice Department LOVES Microsoft!
Date: Sun, 20 May 2001 15:41:36 -0400
Charlie Ebert wrote:
>
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick wrote:
> >Howard Johnson wrote:
> >> {Howard Johnson's post completely deleted}
> >
> >No.
> >
> >--
> >Rick
>
> Howard Johnson,
>
> That is the most completely rediculous thing I've ever heard!
>
> --
> Charlie
> -------
Hmmm... I wonder what I was trying to do here...
--
Rick
------------------------------
From: Dan <[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: 20 May 2001 14:44:09 -0500
In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Rick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> > > > <shrug>So did Apple IIs, with the appropriate
> > > > upgrade.
> > >
> > > The TRS 80s didnt need an upgrade. They ran CP/M out of the box.
> >
> > Hmmm? No, I don't think CP/M was included. Perhaps
> > you mean it was cheaper on the TRS-80 than,
> > the Apple II?
> >
>
> I dont care what you -think-. Try doing some research. TRS 80's didnt
> need an upgrade. They could run CP/M out of the box. Apple IIs couldnt.
> And dont tell me what I mean.
As much as I hate to interrupt this gruesome flame-fest, I need to
interject some facts:
The only TRS-80 capable of running CP/M "out of the box" in 1981 was the
Model II. Model Is and IIIs absolutely needed an "upgrade" - unless
you wanted to run a totally non-standard version of CP/M. Since the
reason to run CP/M was to use the available software - and that software
wouldn't run on the non-standard TRS-80 Model I version - there was not
much point to it.
The "upgrade" consisted of moving the ROMS out of the way to make RAM
available at the all-important address of 100 hex. This is where all
standard CP/M programs begin.
Yes, I own (several) Model Is and 4s. I even have CP/M for the 4. I
don't use it, however. TRS-DOS6/LS-DOS/LDOS is much better.
Dan
------------------------------
** 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
******************************
