
                   comp.os.os2.advocacy             (Usenet)

                 Saturday, 13-Nov-1999 to Friday, 19-Nov-1999

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     12-Nov-99 23:15:21
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 05:13:20
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Chad Mulligan wrote:

> Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:382CD8DF.CD936BBD@ibm.net...
> >

> > A company with monopoly is not allowed to exercise its muscle.
> >
>
> Incomplete statement,  add to the detriment of the consumer.

No.
A complete statement.  You can take it out of context to imply a different
meaning.
What IBM or SUN can do the monopolist MS cannot do.


> > > The net effect on the consumer has been
> > > negligible, that is the only point an anti-trust case is concerned with.
> >
> > NO.  There are 3 main points.
> >
> > 1) Is MS a monopoly because as a monopoly they are very restricted in how
> they
> > exercise their muscle and what companies they can purchase and exclusive
> deals
> > etc. etc. etc..  (see Chad's admission above about exercising their
> muscle).
> >
> > 2) Is MS an abusive monopoly because f they are then many can sue MS with
> that
> > fact proven the day the trail starts.  Say Caldera softly.
> >
> > 3) Did MS hurt consumers?   The home run.
> >
>
> What's this your Christmas List?

Hey man, if you can't handle reality then change it.  Drugs or posting on
COOA.
One's illegal one's not but both are bad for your health.


> > If all that happens is (1) is proven in court and accepted as fact by this
> case
> > then MS is screwed.   They will have to drastically alter how they conduct
> > business.
> > If (2) is proven in court then MS will be sued by a hoard of companies
> looking
> > for damages.
> > If (3) is proven then MS is split into tiny parts and scattered to the
> wind.
> >
>
> The only salient point is proving the consumer has been harmed, the rest is
> civil.

Then for the sake of being a decent guy, agree that 1 and 2 are true.

IMO, once MS is asserted to be a monopoly they'll be tied up enough with their
businesses to die the death of a thousand cuts.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org                      12-Nov-99 23:17:14
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 05:13:20
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org>

Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:382CE1DC.D724244C@ibm.net...
>
>
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
> > Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message
news:382B84D1.56F0E3EC@ibm.net...
> > >
> >
>
> > > Learn what?  Learn how to tune and maintain a PC.  A cost - lower
> > productivity.
> > >
> >
> > How to understand what that machine is doing, how to understand what an
> > error message means, how to avoid error messages in the future.  You
seem
> > stuck on a maintenance cycle, reeboot.
>
> :-) I'm not a PC. Think of me as a phone. Something that can reach around
and
> still be simple to use and very and reliable.  No error messages.  Error
> messages are for mechanics.
>
> But I have no clue how a phone works -- how does that car of mine work?
These
> are trivia questions to me -- O have ajob to do and it's not understanding
how a
> PC works.  That's the job of the PC support people -- another cost.  Hey
why
> don't I have to pay for phone support ?
>
>
> > > > 3. Training is a cost regardless of system.
> > >
> > > Training how to maintain and tune a PC is always a loss.  Frequent
> > upgrades mean
> > > frequent losses.
> >
>
> > What are you saying?  What frequency are you referring to?  How is this
> > relevent to this discussion.
>
> Upgrade your Microsoft software -- you'll need more training.  Need new
hardware
> to run that software -- more $ $ $.  Welcome to your favorite, innovative
> monopoly.
>
>
> > > Knowledge of what?  Of how the PC works -- something every person
should
> > know
> > > since the PC is such a crummy device. "Learn", "knowledge" Code words
> > don't
> > > change the problem or solve the problem.
> > >
> >
> > Computing systems and data processing.  These are salient skills in
planning
> > for  long term productivity.
>
> No.  These are skills for IT janitors who run around and futz with toy
hardware.
>

Not anymore, that is the real issue, you feel invalidated by the fact that
some first level supervisor might actually find out how simple your world
really is, sad so sad.

> Systems analysis is not drinking on a Wintel PC trying to get an IDE drive
to
> format.   I'd rather pour concrete.
>
>
>
> > > I have no clue how my phone works.  I have a shallow, shallow learning
> > curve for
> > > my phone and thank goodness for that shallow curve.
> > >
> >
> > So you don't have knowledge or care of the difference between long
distance,
> > local, 800 service, billing, LATA's etc.  These subjects, while not
critical
> > for first time use can make use and decision making at a later date more
> > effective.
>
> Long distance is not a technical issue -- it is a billing issue.  So are
all the
> other services.  Who knows how an 800 service works?  Who cares -- tell me
the
> price and terms.  Let's talk business.
>
>

How your phone accesses long distance through your switch isn't a technical
issue?



--
Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Hipcrime Vocabulary Organization (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     12-Nov-99 23:27:25
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 05:13:20
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


"M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn" wrote:

> > Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
>
> >>> I think forcing M$ to play fair would make them suffer sufficiently. B)
>
> >> Perhaps but it would not restore innovation and free market driven
> >> conditions to make sure the customers benefit from it.
>
> > Playing fair would make MS suffer AND restore innovation.  MS is poorly
> > structured to be competitive despite what its advocates say.  They have
been
> > dictating for so long they have become deaf.   Product development cycles
> > long and overloaded with gimmicks and pet features
> >
> > W2K is a "sitting duck."   When challenged on price in the low end of the
PC
> > market they will wither.  For non PCs, WinCE is technically inferior to
> > several competition products.
>
> That would assume that preloading of Win-Products is forbidden. Otherwise
> PC-suppliers would simply have to go through with that to prevent huge
invest-
> ments in new software, games etc etc. at the customers and retraining their
sup-
> port and technical staff at their own end. Interesting was the article
somewhere of
> a flatmate being brought up to date on the M$ ruling and said; "Oh no, that
means
> more different OS's".  Of course allowing M$ to continue would mean the same 
eve-
> ry two years, but that is something we know not the average user. Those
would simply
> continue to buy news versions and new hardware like lemmings as they always
did.

Profit.

You can only squeeze out so much profit by putting hardware prices and then
you have to
look else where.  As prices drop the opportunity to save $90+ by cutting out
windows
seems appealing.   Now MS can cut prices but MS needs to grow 20%+ per year. 
They have
to increase volume or increase prices.

In  due time, in a free market, the need to cut PC costs will clash with MS's
need to
increase profit.

Outside of the PC realm MS has serious problem. WindowsCE is a disaster and
this is
after MS has spend BILLIONS to save it.  IMHO Liberate (formerly NCI) has a
good shot
with their NetBSD based client and server.  As I understand form the BYTE
review a few
years ago, NCI is using X and NetBSD to build a WebTV killer.







--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: No.Spam@null.org                                  12-Nov-99 15:27:26
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 05:13:20
Subj: Re: How much longer can you use this thing?

From: "Charles Turner" <No.Spam@null.org>

On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 02:39:55 -0500, Bob Germer wrote:
>> Mac

>What do you use for a word processor for that MAC? If you use the one
>Apple installs, you are using an MS product.

WordPerfect.

Nisus Writer.

You're saying Appleworks contains some MS code?



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Missouri - Columbia (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: znu@znu.dhs.org                                   13-Nov-99 07:34:08
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 05:13:20
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: znu@znu.dhs.org (ZnU)

In article <80iqv5$evt$1@news.campuscwix.net>, "Chad Mulligan"
<cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote:

> ZnU <znu@znu.dhs.org> wrote in message
> news:znu-1211992052100001@192.168.0.2...
> > In article <80idag$802$1@news.campuscwix.net>, "Chad Mulligan"
> > <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote:
> >
> <trimmed>
> > > >
> > >
> > > Never said that, any intelligent person understands that the companies
> > > called as witnesses are grinding thier own axes.  Of course you believe
> what
> > > you want it makes no nevermind to me.
> >
> > Why don't you address the other point? Do you consider it more likely that
> > Microsoft abused its monopoly, or that there is a vast conspiracy against
> > Microsoft?
> >
> 
> Neither.

[snip]

You seem to be implying with all of this (given the question you are
responding to) that the witnesses are of questionable credibility because
of these past events. But most of what you mention is in no way part of
this trial. The things the witnesses have testified to in this trial are,
for the most part, backed up by internal documents from both MS and other
companies.

There is essentially no question that MS did the things presented in the
findings of fact. Argue all you want about whether they are/should be
illegal. But they did happen.

-- 
All parts should go together without forcing.  You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.  Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason.  By all means, do
not use a hammer.
           --IBM maintenance manual, 1925

ZnU <znu@znu.dhs.org> | <http://znu.dhs.org>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Black Helicopter People (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: No.Spam@null.org                                  12-Nov-99 15:42:04
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 05:13:20
Subj: Re: How much longer can you use this thing?

From: "Charles Turner" <No.Spam@null.org>

On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:27:40 GMT, Mike Trettel wrote:

>I've settled on using a Mac G4. Now I don't have to deal with either IBM
>>or Microsoft or some unkown ententiny called Linux.
>
>That's quite a leap.  You seem to be implying that OS/2 users should spend
>several thousand dollars for a G4, dump all of our present software
>and recreate everything under the Mac style of computing, such that we are
>now under the benevolent gaze of Steve Jobs?  I think I'll pass on that.
>IBM and Microsoft are bad enough, thank you.

When my old OS2 home machine's HD blew out rather than rebuilding
it (it was a 486) I bought an iMac instead. All day at the office I do Linux
and 
AIX. At home I just want to be a computer 'civilian'. Apple was the lesser of
the evils 
compared to MS.

However, I'm pleased that my new office PC seems to run Warp well.
It's triple booted at the moment (win98, RH6.0, and Warp4) and I'm
spending most of my time running Warp.

So for me Warp = office applications,
iMac  = home applications,
Linux = industrial applications.

I hope we'll someday have good choices among a slicked up Linux,
Mac OS-x, and perhaps a VMware type product that supports Warp.





--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Missouri - Columbia (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jdc0014@InfoNET.st-johns.nf.ca                    13-Nov-99 07:58:09
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 05:13:20
Subj: Re: Why can't it die?

From: jdc0014@InfoNET.st-johns.nf.ca (John Hong)

: Kelly Robinson wrote:

: > We don't care.  This is why we constantly speak against it and, MUCH more
: > importantly, the dilettantes who made it:  I B M .
: >
: > You haven't figured this out yet?!


	Which I really don't get myself.  I mean, do you begin screaming 
the momemt you see a guy driving around in his fully restored 1968 
Barracuda?  I can honestly almost picture that...

	"I know you got a brain up there, but are you a complete idiot?  
Barracuda's are long dead!  Get with the times man!"

	This is almost going beyond (if it hadn't already) the point of 
sheer ludicrous.  If you honestly hate OS/2 *that* much, perhaps you 
should seek some counciling.  I'm no Microsoft advocate, but for crying 
out loud, I wouldn't consider going into a Windows newsgroup and cuss a 
storm about their product or their company.

	Hypothetical questions: If you came across one of the few OS/2 
user groups in your area, would you go in and shake the users violently 
and basically completely freak out all over them?  Would your fear of 
being kicked in the ass prevent you from attempting or would your 
complete and utter malevolence of OS/2 overcome that fear?  If you came 
across an ATM machine that you just knew in the back of your mind was 
running OS/2, would you grab the nearest metallic object and proceed 
beating the stuffings out of it?  Would your fear of punishment from the 
law prevent you from doing such an unlawful act or, again, would the 
hatred that has been a demon seed spawning in your mind overcome that fear 
and proceed to bash it anyway?

	National Enquirer wants to know...

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: St. John's InfoNET (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org                      13-Nov-99 00:37:16
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 05:13:20
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org>

ZnU <znu@znu.dhs.org> wrote in message
news:znu-1311990230470001@192.168.0.2...
> In article <80iqv5$evt$1@news.campuscwix.net>, "Chad Mulligan"
> <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote:
>
> > ZnU <znu@znu.dhs.org> wrote in message
> > news:znu-1211992052100001@192.168.0.2...
> > > In article <80idag$802$1@news.campuscwix.net>, "Chad Mulligan"
> > > <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote:
> > >
> > <trimmed>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Never said that, any intelligent person understands that the
companies
> > > > called as witnesses are grinding thier own axes.  Of course you
believe
> > what
> > > > you want it makes no nevermind to me.
> > >
> > > Why don't you address the other point? Do you consider it more likely
that
> > > Microsoft abused its monopoly, or that there is a vast conspiracy
against
> > > Microsoft?
> > >
> >
> > Neither.
>
> [snip]
>
> You seem to be implying with all of this (given the question you are
> responding to) that the witnesses are of questionable credibility because
> of these past events. But most of what you mention is in no way part of
> this trial. The things the witnesses have testified to in this trial are,
> for the most part, backed up by internal documents from both MS and other
> companies.
>

It should, IMO, shed some light on the credibility of the witnesses,
witnesses with an agenda aren't, perforce, reliable witnesses.

> There is essentially no question that MS did the things presented in the
> findings of fact. Argue all you want about whether they are/should be
> illegal. But they did happen.
>

Never said they didn't happen, have you ever played poker? The question of
legality is yet to be determined, that's the next phase the burden of proof
on the prosecution now is to prove that the consumer was damaged.

> --
> All parts should go together without forcing.  You must remember that the
> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.  Therefore, if you
> can't get them together again, there must be a reason.  By all means, do
> not use a hammer.
>            --IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>
> ZnU <znu@znu.dhs.org> | <http://znu.dhs.org>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Hipcrime Vocabulary Organization (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: Erik@elsewhere.ca                                 13-Nov-99 01:38:01
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 10:28:21
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: "Erik Schild" <Erik@elsewhere.ca>

Jack Troughton wrote:

> Stan... you're from Israel, so you probably don't really know what
> "government" means in British Columbia, Canada.  To give you an idea;
> the most recent scandal (but not the first, nor the nastiest)
> involving a sitting premier is an instructive little spectacle known
> in the press here as "Bingogate".  I invite you to imagine the sordid
> details.

That's old news.  We've had plenty of scandals since then.
In fact some people are calling the capital of Victoria 'Trough-ton'.

> To which I might add that BC is a very beautiful place, and everyone
> I've met from out there have been very nice people.  I lived there for
> a while, but I was very young, and don't really know the place.  My
> sister lived there for seven years, and she likes the place.  However,
> politics has a flavour all its own in BC.  The "father" of BC was a
> premier popularly known as "Wacky" Bennet.  I don't know if he's the
> first... maybe the guy from bc.politics could enlighten us?

If he's the first what?  Hope your sister's doin' o.k.

Readers please note that I'm responding to off-topic crossposting, not
originating it!

E.Schild
eschild@uniserve.com




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Uniserve (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jhimmel@i-2000.com                                12-Nov-99 23:02:21
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 10:28:21
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: jhimmel@i-2000.com (James Himmelman)

On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 02:12:37, David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com> 
wrote:

> You guys can never back up your statements and when you lose you just resort 
to 
> insults.

> ---------------------------------------
> David H. McCoy
> dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
> ---------------------------------------

Funny, that is your method EXACTLY. I can't help but smile whenever 
you resort to calling me names. At that point I know you have given up
on a losing argument.

The original poster told us we should leave OS/2. Go back and read it.
What the hell makes him think he knows what we need? The post was an 
obvious troll.

[[[ James Himmelman - jhimmel@i-2000.com ]]]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               13-Nov-99 06:12:25
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 10:28:21
Subj: Re: PM on Windows?

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:41:53 -0600, Kelly Robinson wrote:

>Get rid of OS/2's backwards SIQ design in favor of NT's and I'm all for it.

And break the millions of dollars' worth of mission critical line of business
applications in use throughout enterpriese.

I am all for that.

SIQ is an overblown issue.    I rarely get bit by it other than from Netscape
with Java.    It's the exit list that bothers me more.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.c...               13-Nov-99 12:42:29
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 10:28:22
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

Message sender: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk

From: David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk>

On 13 Nov 1999 03:45:14 GMT, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
wrote:

>Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:
>
>CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
>CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so inclined.
>
>I am deleting all but the most recent new text.
>

How typical of you to remove context.

>Curtis Bass writes:
>
>> Well, I am going to be like you, Dave.
>
>Obviously not, Curtis.
>

On what basis do you make that claim, Tholen?

>> Up until now, I have been lenient, and have given you much undeserved
>> leeway.
>
>Balderdash, Curtis.  You called me "inept" without justification.
>That's hardly what I'd call "undeserved leeway".
>

He had plenty of justification for calling you inept.  You based your
arguments around a single piece of flawed evidence and refused to
acknowledge others evidence that you were wrong.  You are being
laughed at as an imbecile Tholen, not just as "inept".

>> You do not give me any leeway whatsoever.
>
>Why should I give someone who responds so emotionally ("inept") rather
>than logically any leeway?
>

You *are* inept Tholen as has been proven with evidence.

[ rest of Tholen idiotic drivel snipped]

The facts are in Cutis'  favour Tholen.  You made claims based on
false evidence, and haven't got the guts to admit when you are wrong.

You *can* read the javainf.exe file without OS/2 - your claim to the
contrary was wrong, and your persistence with that claim in the face
of clear evidence that you were wrong makes you a liar.




Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: (Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           13-Nov-99 08:47:16
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 12:46:02
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <80iqv5$evt$1@news.campuscwix.net>, on 11/12/99 at 08:55 PM,
   "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> said:

> Microsoft has muscle in the computing world.  They have exercised that
> muscle, much like IBM, Sun, Oracle, Novell, Netscape and Digital
> Equipment had when they had the muscle. The net effect on the consumer
> has been negligible, that is the only point an anti-trust case is
> concerned with. The blatant hypocrisy of some of these plaintiffs
> (complainants I think is the more proper word as DOJ is acting on their
> behalf as plaintiff) of testifying that MS was improper in using tactics
> that they, themselves, used in similar situations is deplorable.

Even if I grant that what you say about IBM, Sun, Oracle, Novell,
Netscape, and DEC were true, which of course is a blatant lie on your
part, the consumer was hurt and badly hurt in many ways.

1. Since I had no desire to run DOS or Windows I had no desire to pay for
same. But MicroSoft via its per processor licensing policy with virtually
every PC manufacturer made me pay for worthless crap. Collectively, my
clients and I have purchased well over 10,000 machines in the past 5
years. Even if the added cost were only $30 per machine, that is $300,000.
Multiply that by the tens of millions of PC that do not run Windows.
That's a lot of hurt on consumers. Remember every company as well as every
individual who buys a machine is a consumer.

2. Before MS gained monopoly control over the desktop, I had far more
software choices than I do today. MicroSoft's monopoly position allowed it
to effectively kill numerous programs and software publishers. In 1995,
there was an entire aisle at our local CompUSA of wordprocessor programs
and enhancements for many of them. Today, there is less than 5 feet of
shelfspace for same. Ditto for spreadsheets, etc.

3. Before MS exercised its monopoly control, I had literally 100 different
brands of modems which would work with any operating system. Now, one must
search far and wide to find a modem which doesn't depend on the overly
boated Windows 9x code. And when one finds same, one pays nearly double
what MS compatible modems cost.

4. Before MS gained monopoly control over the desktop, computer users
could update their version of DOS to gain new features without having to
spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to upgrade their applications. By
exercising its monopoly control, MS forced them to buy new versions of
software, train their personnel on its use, etc. Anything which drives up
the cost of doing business hurts every consumer of the product or services
that company provides since those costs must be passed on to the consumer.

Take one of my law firm clients for example. They have approximately 90
workstations. They have been running (and continue to desire to run)
WordPerfect 5.0 for DOS. They are running DOS/Windows 3.11 for Workgroups
using Bitstream Fontware to provide customized fonts for their documents.
They have well over 800 gigabytes of documents on their servers all
created in WordPerfect, virtually all with Bitstream fonts. Moreover, they
paid well over $40,000 for their timekeeping/billing software which is a
DOS application written by a company no longer in business. Every lawyer
in the firm knows how to use it and does in fact use it daily. In the past
year, they have had to purchase 40 new PC's to replace 386's and 486's
which are not hardware capable of handling the Y2K problem. With every
machine they purchased, they had to pay for Windows 9x. Then they had to
pay to reformat the hard drives and install Novell, DOS, and Win 3.11. We
charged them $40 per machine for the software installation if we did not
have to reformat the drive. We charged an additional $25 per machine if we
did because of the added time of going to each machine and performing the
installation rather than do a network installation from a server.

Had the firm done what the MS salesman wanted them to do, they would have
had to pay $1,300 per machine for software and spend approximately $1,200
per employee on retraining. Their productivity would have been shot to
hell since every document they imported would require extensive editing to
translate the fonts to the crap MS provides. New time/billing software
would have cost in the neighborhood of $50,000 more. It cost them nothing
to make Novell Y2K compliant. But MS insisted that Novell was not
compatible with NT, etc., etc.. Now $2,500 per employee times the 70 or so
secretaries, paralegals, etc. is $175,000 just for software and training.
The only way a law firm can recover such costs is to raise its hourly
rate. The consumer is hurt.

And don't even go to the concept that it's only a couple of bucks per
consumer. I dont' care if its only a penny a consumer. With 200,000,000
individual consumers, that is still $2,000,000 harm to the consumer. At 10
cents per consumer in the US, it's 20 million dollars. And the real cost
is several hundred times that much. As Ev Dirksen and Charlie Halleck once
said, a billion here a billion there, sooner or later it adds up to real
money.

> It has been rumoured that Bill Gates and Bill Clinton had a falling out
> over campaign financing in the 1996 election and that is why DOJ
> actually brought this case to court.  This is entirely possible though
> unverifiable. So an actual conspiracy is a bit of a reach.  MS was the
> biggest kid on the block, one who unseated the previous bully, IBM, in
> the eighties so when someone jumped on them, they all joined in. This is
> somewhat like when Europeans dis the US, everyone jumps on the band
> wagon, nothing more.

You really are a contemptible liar. The suit was not started by the DOJ.
It was originated by the attornies general of 24 states. The DOJ is a
co-plaintiff. There are 25 plaintiffs in this case. The attornies general
represent approximately 75% of the American public, BTW. Thus the elected
or appointed legal guardians of over 200,00,000 million Americans believed
their citizens were being harmed. The findings of fact support them
entirely.

> If anyone has the slightest legitimate beef with MS it, IMO, is
> Netscape. Though their software isn't and hasn't been up to par, they
> had created a market for their browser, and were selling it.  MS ended
> that market by giving theirs away. Caldera's case, since they purchased
> DR from another third party, long after the issue with Win3.1 had become
> moot, is specious opportunism at best, a purposeful fraud in the
> extreme. A warning message from a beta release of software warning about
> known, and real, incompatibilities isn't proof of anything. IAC, they
> didn't own it then, Digital Research should have brought suit then, or
> Novell when they purchased it.

Again another contemptible lie. You may not like Netscape. Millions of
Americans and millions more around the world prefer it to the overbloated,
slow, buggy, crap foisted off by MicroSoft. And by your twisted logic,
someone who buys a used Ford and is harmed due to a manufacturing or
design defect  has no standing to sue Ford. Take the example of someone
who buys a new Ford. Some months later Ford finds a problem and recalls
the car for modification. The car is so modified. Some months later the
owner trades the car in and the dealer resells the car. The new owner is
seriously injured because the modification was itself faulty. By your
twisted logic, that poor soul has no right to sue Ford because he didn't
own the car when the modification was done.

> Other companies like WordPerfect Corp, Lotus Development, Borland
> International simply lost in the one true test of viability, the market. 
> WP Corp lost because they consciously decided not to develop a GUI
> product at Windows inception.  That strategic decision cost them the
> market lead and their independence.  Lotus didn't keep up with the
> technology either. Borland had some good products but didn't make the
> cut from 16 bit to 32 bit when Win95 was released.  Their IDE concept
> and C++ package are still my favorite, when forced to code. Borland's
> gravest loss came at the hands of Lotus, not MS, when Lotus won their
> suit over the menu structure on spreadsheets. Paradox, while a good
> first effort at a GUI RDBMS never had the
> acceptance of dBase, FoxPro or Access even as a character based app.

99% of what you say is unsubstantiated opinion not shared by intelligent
humans. As to Lotus, did indeed keep up with the technology. I have two
clients who were (and are) Lotus shops. EVERY TIME MS put out a patch or
new version of Windows, 1-2-3 would no longer run. Every time, Lotus had
to figure out what MS had done and issue its own patches. MS even got
caught doing this deliberately once. Perhaps you forget the "Lotus runs.
Fix it" memo from Gates to the Windows team.

> IBM's complaints are the most ludicrous of the whole bunch. This is a
> company that has been on the dock with these same charges several times
> in the last half century and have never really cared about the 'Personal
> Computing' market except as a sideline. 

Another demonstrable, vicious lie. IBM was in the dock exactly 2 times in
the past 60 years. Both times, IBM changed the practices the DOJ
complained about without forcing the government to prove what was
demonstrably true. 

>Their claim that MS forced them to stop supporting OS/2 or they'd be cut off
of being >OEM's for Win95 is  ludicrous.  I was an avid OS/2 user and fan
during this period, and
> would still be if IBM were ever serious about delivering it to it's 
potential, they aren't >and never were. At the time of Warp/3's release 
(almost a year prior to Win95) IBM's >personal computer division refused  to
preinstall Warp and continued installing >Win3.11 even though the  licensing
of Warp at the time would have allowed them to >meet their OEM contract with
MS (Warp needed an external Win3 License at the time) >and  propagated their
own operating system. They chose, emphasis on chose,
> not to.  MS had no input in this decision and that claim of a last minute
audit was bogus, >hey'd made their decision a full eight month  prior.

This fairy tale is almost as ludicrous as the falling out with Clinton
one. For the record, I have bought true-blue workstations and servers from
IBM with Warp pre-installed every year for the past 6 years. I still can.
I can still and do on occasion buy them with NO operating system
installed, an option I have always had.

> So you can see, that although an organized conspiracy (<G> I'll leave
> those to the less stable COLA denizens) doesn't exists. There are many
> inducements for senior managers of these companies to cover their own
> screwups by claiming MS made them do it. It is that and nothing more, MS
> and Bill Gates is being made the scapegoat for these incompetents even
> as they, almost unanimously, have new partnerships with MS for
> development of new products and services.

If this fairy tale were true, which it demonstably is not, how come there
are paper trails and testimony from MS employees that refute your assinine
statements? As to continuing relationships, I can take you to several
hundred pizza parlors, bars, restaurants, dry cleaners, insurance
agencies, check cashing stores, etc. in Philadelphia which have a
continuing relationship with a certain organization which will burn their
businesses down if they don't continue to buy "insurance", purchase
supplies from the right vendors, give space for vending machines, use the
right linen service, use the right trash hauler, etc. It makea no
difference if the hoodlum doing the shakedown is jailed. The organization
has plenty of reserves on hand to pick up the payments. It make no
difference if the boss is jailed, there are plenty of wiseguys ready to
replace him.

There is only one difference between Bill Gates' organization and
organized crime. He is so brazen he does it in the open, rather than
hiding. He is a criminal and MS is a corrupt organization. Gates and his
henchmen are lucky that the DOJ and the state attornies general brought
civil rather than criminal charges.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: l_luciano@da.mob                                  13-Nov-99 14:47:21
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 12:46:02
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: l_luciano@da.mob (Stan Goodman)

Does anybody understand what is the connection between whether Microsoft 
did or did not do and whether government in British Columbia is cleaner or 
dirtier (probably neither) than it is anywhere else?

On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 09:38:02, "Erik Schild" <Erik@elsewhere.ca> wrote:

> 
> Jack Troughton wrote:
> 
> > Stan... you're from Israel, so you probably don't really know what
> > "government" means in British Columbia, Canada.  To give you an idea;
> > the most recent scandal (but not the first, nor the nastiest)
> > involving a sitting premier is an instructive little spectacle known
> > in the press here as "Bingogate".  I invite you to imagine the sordid
> > details.
> 
> That's old news.  We've had plenty of scandals since then.
> In fact some people are calling the capital of Victoria 'Trough-ton'.
> 
> > To which I might add that BC is a very beautiful place, and everyone
> > I've met from out there have been very nice people.  I lived there for
> > a while, but I was very young, and don't really know the place.  My
> > sister lived there for seven years, and she likes the place.  However,
> > politics has a flavour all its own in BC.  The "father" of BC was a
> > premier popularly known as "Wacky" Bennet.  I don't know if he's the
> > first... maybe the guy from bc.politics could enlighten us?
> 
> If he's the first what?  Hope your sister's doin' o.k.
> 
> Readers please note that I'm responding to off-topic crossposting, not
> originating it!
> 
> E.Schild
> eschild@uniserve.com
> 
> 
> 
> 

-------------
Stan Goodman
Qiryat Tiv'on
Israel

E-mail sent to l_luciano@da.mob will, of course, not reach me. Sorry.
Send E-mail to: domain: hashkedim dot com, username: stan.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Verio (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           13-Nov-99 09:44:11
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 12:46:02
Subj: Re: I'd much rather use OS/2 than MacOS!!!  By far, I would!

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <382CDBB8.D3F02A94@ibm.net>, on 11/12/99 at 10:32 PM,
   Joseph <josco@ibm.net> said:

> Kelly Robinson wrote:

> > Sorry, people have to know that...  Macs are just plain dilettante.  They
> > weren't spectacular to start with (they stole Xerox's GUI idea which was
> > conceived in the early 1970s and took some Xerox employees along with it)
> > but, please, you can't blame Gates' thievery when you consider everything
> > that devil-bastard Jobs has done.

> Jobs and Apple -- thank god it's not another IBM rant.

In a prior lawsuit, Gates testified that both Steve Jobs and he stole
programmers and ideas from Xerox PARC (Palo Alto Research Center). Why do
you suppose an Mac and Windows look and work so much alike?

People really need to read a book called Hard Drive written by two
reporters from Seattle newspapers which covers MS from its inception to
the time Warp 3 was released. This was written by newspapermen from papers
which were heavily dependent on MS for advertising revenue. Yet it is a
scathing attack on the business ethics of Gates and Company.




--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jhimmel@i-2000.com                                13-Nov-99 15:01:11
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 12:46:02
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: jhimmel@i-2000.com (James Himmelman)

On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 02:49:28, uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) wrote:

> James Himmelman? (jhimmel@i-2000.com?) wrote (Fri, 12 Nov 1999 23:29:01
GMT):
> >Windows, because she loves the way it works). To put it simply, with 
> >the exception of PC games (of which I have no interest), we are doing
> >pretty much the same thing Windows users are doing.

> Right.  Except, oooo, buying New applications! New hardware!
> New ideas!

Actually, my scanner, desktop ISA PCMCIA reader, digital camera, and 
CD-recorder are all fairly recent purchases, as is my CD-recorder 
software. My software is updated periodically. What exactly are you 
looking for? Maybe if I was into computer games, I would need to be 
continuously updating my sound card and 3-D video card, but I am not. 
How often should I be replacing my hardware to make you happy?

> It is a LOT cheaper to stick with OS2, at least
> in the short run (in your case, anyway, where you claim to
> have everything you need or want or care about).

I love that. I "claim" to have everything I need. I gave you a good 
list of OS/2 applications that I use to do pretty much everything that
most home users do with Windows. I have no interest in games. If I 
did, I would just boot up my Win95 installation (I do have it 
installed - so that I could give it a fair evaluation). If I was a 
"serious" gamer, I probably would have left OS/2 long ago. Why is that
so difficult for you to believe?

By the way, cost has nothing to do with my decision. I set up a 
completely functional Win95 partition, complete with the applications 
necessary to perform what is currently handled by my OS/2 system. I 
wanted to evaluate my choices for myself. In fact, It costs me more to
use OS/2 because much of the hardware I buy comes bundled with Windows
software, while I usually have to purchase an OS/2 version. For 
instance, my CD-R came with Windows recording software, but I had to 
purchase OS/2 CD recording software. I'm comfortable with that. OS/2 
is worth it to me, and OS/2 ISV's deserve compensation for their hard 
work.

Is there something wrong with that, uno?

That is one thing that amuses me about David's posts. On the one hand 
he claims that OS/2 users don't want to pay for anything, but then 
when someone mentions that they pay for certain things for OS/2 that 
are free to Windows users, he tries to deride them for that. Anyway, 
David is not your problem.

[[[ James Himmelman - jhimmel@i-2000.com ]]]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cndbass@yahoo.com                                 12-Nov-99 15:07:18
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 12:46:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <cndbass@yahoo.com>


Dave Tholen wrote:

-- snip --

> If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
> doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
> choices do you have, Curtis?

-- snip --

Actually, Dave repeated this question a total of five times in this one
posting alone, and several, perhaps dozens of other times throughout
this thread. Okay, here is the answer, Dave:

"Run the self-extraction on a system that supports OS/2 applications."

I have already posted that answer once before.  The problem is that,
even if you had done so with your file, you still would have received
error messages as a result.  If Mike Timbol decided to run OS/2, and if
he tried to extract the contents of *your* JAVAINUF.EXE, he would have
failed.

If you would claim that the quoted answer above vindicates you, then we
must assume that the file is intact, because it would have to be in
order for a self-extraction under OS/2 to be successful. Unfortunately,
if the file was intact, then InfoZip would have also been successful in
extracting the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE, and you would never have
received the error messages that led you to the erroneous conclusion in
the first place.

Catch-22, Dave.  You lose.


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: znu@znu.dhs.org                                   13-Nov-99 15:25:12
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 12:46:02
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: znu@znu.dhs.org (ZnU)

In article <80j7s5$l15$1@news.campuscwix.net>, "Chad Mulligan"
<cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote:

> ZnU <znu@znu.dhs.org> wrote in message
> news:znu-1311990230470001@192.168.0.2...
> > In article <80iqv5$evt$1@news.campuscwix.net>, "Chad Mulligan"
> > <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU <znu@znu.dhs.org> wrote in message
> > > news:znu-1211992052100001@192.168.0.2...
> > > > In article <80idag$802$1@news.campuscwix.net>, "Chad Mulligan"
> > > > <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > <trimmed>
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Never said that, any intelligent person understands that the
> companies
> > > > > called as witnesses are grinding thier own axes.  Of course you
> believe
> > > what
> > > > > you want it makes no nevermind to me.
> > > >
> > > > Why don't you address the other point? Do you consider it more likely
> that
> > > > Microsoft abused its monopoly, or that there is a vast conspiracy
> against
> > > > Microsoft?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Neither.
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > You seem to be implying with all of this (given the question you are
> > responding to) that the witnesses are of questionable credibility because
> > of these past events. But most of what you mention is in no way part of
> > this trial. The things the witnesses have testified to in this trial are,
> > for the most part, backed up by internal documents from both MS and other
> > companies.
> >
> 
> It should, IMO, shed some light on the credibility of the witnesses,
> witnesses with an agenda aren't, perforce, reliable witnesses.
> 
> > There is essentially no question that MS did the things presented in the
> > findings of fact. Argue all you want about whether they are/should be
> > illegal. But they did happen.
> >
> 
> Never said they didn't happen, have you ever played poker?

If you agree these events happened, why are you attempting to cast doubt
on the credibility of the witnesses?

> The question of
> legality is yet to be determined, that's the next phase the burden of proof
> on the prosecution now is to prove that the consumer was damaged.

Er... No. Read the findings of fact. The prosecution has already proven
that the consumer was harmed. Given the language used in the findings of
fact, it's obvious the the judge considers some of Microsoft's actions
illegal. The only real question now is what he plans to do about it.

-- 
All parts should go together without forcing.  You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.  Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason.  By all means, do
not use a hammer.
           --IBM maintenance manual, 1925

ZnU <znu@znu.dhs.org> | <http://znu.dhs.org>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Black Helicopter People (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           13-Nov-99 10:39:14
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 12:46:02
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <yHQxxE9f8dqd-pn2-iPrtwb87OYQF@POBLANO>, on 11/13/99 at 02:47 PM,
   l_luciano@da.mob (Stan Goodman) said:

> Does anybody understand what is the connection between whether Microsoft
>  did or did not do and whether government in British Columbia is cleaner
> or  dirtier (probably neither) than it is anywhere else?

Nope. But since you brought it up, I am sad to say as a US citizen, the I
doubt it is anywhere near as corrupt as any city here in the US with more
than 10,000 people. Any city which can run a commuter train system
basically on the honor system must be in a country of respectful, honest
people. If they tried that in New York, the TA wouldn't get $10 a day from
fares.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: News@The-Net-4U.com                               13-Nov-99 17:08:20
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 12:46:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: News@The-Net-4U.com (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn)

>> (which very fitting stood for Quick-and-Dirty-OS) working
>> on the Intel processor which CP/M did not.

> The 8080 was an Intel CPU and CP/M was 8080 all the way.  Came
> with source.  Sort of like the linux of 20 years ago (and it was 99% pro-
> grammer-users instead of 99% user-users).  A different climate back then.

You're right of course. I remembered it incorrect, thought CP/M had to
be ported to Intel's 8080 from the Z80 by Seattle Computer. However, it
was there at that time available. Should have looked at the official docu
project for CP/M at http://www.mathcs.emory.edu/~cfs/cpm/cpm.html first.

There is even reference to an Intel MDS development system for it and all
the way instructions on how to adapt it easily for other processors, BIOS etc.

There is even material for an 1.x version on an Imsai computer in 1976. 


Regards from Leeuwarden
Peter van Dobben de Bruijn
---
usethenet.at.the-net-4u.com (.at. becomes @)
----

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: News@The-Net-4U.com                               13-Nov-99 17:08:21
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 12:46:02
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: News@The-Net-4U.com (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn)

>> AND <VBG> the Scandinavion countries "produced" and "exported" to the
>> USA a guy being the founding father of a neat alternative OS. So much for
 
> He based it on minix, which is believed to be of extra-terrestrial origin.
> And just a while ago -you- brought up QDOS-CP/M.  What comes around...

Did he base it on Minix or was Minix such a problem for him that he set out
to do better? Minix is a free available (developed with university tax-dollars 
or
were it <g> Dutch guilders? I guess) Unix kernel to work from. That is quite
so-
mething different than simply robbing someone else's intellectual property and
building a product (and an imperium) by changing and adding some things. The
latter is an infringement on rights of others, Linux was not because it was
based
on free code and BTW gave the imrprovements to the world for free anyhow.

Total different case, different ethics also if you ask me. BTW the distinction
between university dollars and dutch guilders is also relevant. Because I was
(merely jokingly but that did not come across I think) giving an example to
Jeff
of someone from Scandinavia (after his rant about nothing good coming from eu-
rope in general and Scandinavia in special) who is living in the USA now and
has
been accomplished a lot for the free world. So Minix as a basis and itself
coming 
from a Dutch university professor for free is jet another example in the same
line.

Europe gives it away for free <VBG> and some in the USA build imperiums
from other peoples intellectual property. Let me add: this is meant as a
largely
joking reply to a stupid rant of Jeff about the great USA vs the bad
Europeans.

Regards from Leeuwarden
Peter van Dobben de Bruijn
---
usethenet.at.the-net-4u.com (.at. becomes @)
----

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: News@The-Net-4U.com                               13-Nov-99 17:08:21
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 12:46:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: News@The-Net-4U.com (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn)

> Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote:
 
> Read the FOF.

Now it took me some time (being one of those
stupid Europeans Jeff was ranting about <g>) to
realize you meant the Findings of Fact in the USA
vs M$ case. This is a 230 page document in USA
legal English writing. Would you mind pointing me just
a little bit more to where it supports your conclusion that
Seatlle Computer and M$ did not infringe the intellectual
property of Gary Killdall and Digital Research Intergalactic?

> The testimony showing Pournelle was wrong
> and I have it right is in there. 

Very well possible <g> that you are right. But others
have said that he would not lie about Gary's name be-
ing in the original code of the disk with MS-DOS 1.0

> Moreover, the case was detailed in depth in the Seattle
> daily press when MS settled the suit which was by the ow-
> ner of Seattle  Computer, not the receiver. It is also covered
> extensively in a book called Hard Drive.

This was a case between M$ and the company that made
the original "rob" (as I would like to call it untill is proven that
MS-DOS was not a port of CP/M) right? Neither of them in that
case would have any drive to give Digital Research or Gary Kill-
dall ammunition to st up his own suit of M$ about the intellectual
property of CP/M being used in MS-DOS. So I do not think you can
extrapolate any of that story of Seattle Computer vs M$ in this way to
the matter what this is about: MS-DOS being or not being a port of CP/M.

That there was a problem for M$ there is also indicated by the 
settlement between DRI and M$ over the MS-DOS-clone DRI
made under the name DR-DOS (still available from Caldera). M$
did not get a payment, did not pursue the matter in court (which in
those days would have easily driven DRI out of business because
of the huge costs) and settled allowing DRI to continue. A very good
reason for this non-M$-alike behavior would be that they had to admit
that the intellectual property of CP/M was used by creating MS-DOS. It
is also not an uncommon way for M$ to do business, simply re-creating it.

As it is in the original complaint of the Caldera vs M$ lawsuit:

37.	DRI designed DR DOS to be the functional equivalent of MS-DOS,
	i.e., to support the same API set. DRI was able to accomplish this lar-
	gely because of its experience in the development of CP/M, from which
	QDOS and MS-DOS derived.

and elsewhere they quotel QDOS as an OS that <g? "heavily borrowed" from CP/M.

Regards from Leeuwarden
Peter van Dobben de Bruijn
---
usethenet.at.the-net-4u.com (.at. becomes @)
----

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            13-Nov-99 12:26:20
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 12:46:02
Subj: Re: Why can't it die?

From: David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com>

In article <382cf5c0.582945@news.borg.com>, jglatt@spamgone-borg.com says...
>>Mike Ruskai
>>People abandon OS/2, because they
>>convince themselves that they have to, whether or not they actually do.
>
>"We" didn't leave it because we had to -- we left it because we WANTED
>to.
>
>Some of us got a better deal from a companies other than IBM. But
>then, I suppose that if you're a masochist who loves being treated
>like dirt, IBM is your ticket.

Right. Every single person I talked to left OS/2 because it was over taken by 
Windows in just about every single category.

>>It's like the Devo song, Freedom of Choice.  The final refrain is,
>>"Freedom of choice - what you got.  Freedom from choice - what you
>>want..."
>
>Hate to break the news to you -- Mark Mothersbaugh uses Windows, not
>OS/2, in his sound production studio.
>

I love it! I've got more software and hardware options by running
Windows(Win2k 
in this case) than I ever had under OS/2, but these guys are still trying to 
tell us how our choices are limited or how we are paying more money.

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          13-Nov-99 17:28:29
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 16:36:24
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>David Sutherland
>You are being
>laughed at as an imbecile Tholen, not just as "inept".

Yes indeed. Tholen's idiocy is undoubtably the biggest source of
entertainment in COOA. He has a LOT of people laughing at him

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          13-Nov-99 17:40:16
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 16:36:24
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Chad Mulligan
>IBM's complaints are the most ludicrous of the whole bunch. This is a
>company that has been on the dock with these same charges several times in
>the last half century and have never really cared about the 'Personal
>Computing' market except as a sideline.  Their claim that MS forced them to
>stop supporting OS/2 or they'd be cut off of being OEM's for Win95 is
>ludicrous.  I was an avid OS/2 user and fan during this period, and would
>still be if IBM were ever serious about delivering it to it's potential,
>they aren't and never were.

Absolutely. In fact, one measurement I use to gauge whether a person
pontificating in this newsgroup really knows anything about the
computer business, or is merely some bored hobbyist with a boner for a
niche OS and a sense of exaggeration (does *anyone* here actually
believe Bob Germer's claims about his experiences with computers, as
opposed to being a hobbyist who has read too many computer magazine
articles by people who actually do the things he fancies himself
doing?), is based upon their perception of IBM's interest in the PC
market. And soon as they utter something like "IBM is really
interested in selling $90 items, a few at a time, to a bunch of third
parties", then I know that the person doesn't know squat about either
IBM or the market

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          13-Nov-99 17:54:18
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 16:36:24
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Bob Germer
>Since I had no desire to run DOS or Windows I had no desire to pay for
>same. But MicroSoft via its per processor licensing policy with virtually
>every PC manufacturer made me pay for worthless crap.

That's because you're an incompetent consumer. I routinely buy
computers without any OS installed. (I always insist upon installing
the OS myself). You simply don't know how to do this.

If you'd like, I'll sell you some computers without any OS installed.
But, you'll have to pay me extra for providing a service that you
yourself are too incompetent to manage on your own.

>Before MS gained monopoly control over the desktop, I had far more
>software choices than I do today.

Undoubtably spoken by a person who never bought an Amiga or ST or
BeOS, etc.

>Before MS exercised its monopoly control, I had literally 100 different
>brands of modems which would work with any operating system. Now, one must
>search far and wide to find a modem which doesn't depend on the overly
>boated Windows 9x code. And when one finds same, one pays nearly double
>what MS compatible modems cost.

That's because these cheap modems have a lot of their functions
implemented in the driver, rather than ROM. If you want a REAL modem,
you have to pay the NORMAL price for one that actually has ALL the
necessary code in ROM.

Again, you're obviously NOT the person whom you portray yourself to be
online. You do NOT know anything about computers other than what
you've obviously read about, and misunderstood, in some computer
magazine.

So, which computer trade journal are you copying your posts out of?

>Before MS gained monopoly control over the desktop, computer users
>could update their version of DOS to gain new features without having to
>spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to upgrade their applications.

I was using AmigaDOS then -- one of those real alternatives that
worthless malcontents whose only contribution is cheap lip service
inbetween clueless complaints, like you, never actually used.

>Take one of my law firm clients for example. They have approximately 90
>workstations.

Doubtful. I strongly suspect that this is yet another fantasy tale of
yours.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@ibm.net                                     13-Nov-99 09:46:16
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 16:36:24
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>


Chad Mulligan wrote:

> Joseph <josco@ibm.net> wrote in message news:382CE1DC.D724244C@ibm.net...

>
> > > Computing systems and data processing.  These are salient skills in
> planning
> > > for  long term productivity.
> >
> > No.  These are skills for IT janitors who run around and futz with toy
> hardware.
> >
>
> Not anymore, that is the real issue, you feel invalidated by the fact that
> some first level supervisor might actually find out how simple your world
> really is, sad so sad.

Well you can study the Windows PC in all it's glory and call it data
processing
and computer systems architure or macaroni.

Data processing (an older term) usually refers to something other than
learning
a PC.  Advance informations systems technology is not understanding what is
the
windows registry.  AIST is not asking how can I add a new IDE drive without
reinstalling all my software do to the change in drive letters.


> > Systems analysis is not drinking on a Wintel PC trying to get an IDE drive
> to
> > format.   I'd rather pour concrete.
> >
> >
> >
> > > > I have no clue how my phone works.  I have a shallow, shallow learning
> > > curve for
> > > > my phone and thank goodness for that shallow curve.
> > > >
> > >
> > > So you don't have knowledge or care of the difference between long
> distance,
> > > local, 800 service, billing, LATA's etc.  These subjects, while not
> critical
> > > for first time use can make use and decision making at a later date more
> > > effective.
> >
> > Long distance is not a technical issue -- it is a billing issue.  So are
> all the
> > other services.  Who knows how an 800 service works?  Who cares -- tell me
> the
> > price and terms.  Let's talk business.
> >
> >
>
> How your phone accesses long distance through your switch isn't a technical
> issue?

Oh it IS a technical issue.  How many people relying on long distance for
their
business have to know or care what is a "switch"?   None that I know.

I have a phone company to which I have out source my long distance service and
another does my voice mail.  I told them both not not bother me with any
details
so I can work on my business.  So far they have and I'm very happy.  If you
can
tell me how studying the phone system will make me more productive when I call
someone then I'll do it.  I'll learn about the network.

Now I want a PC that lets me work and not know what is going on under the
hood.
If I want to know about PCs then I  would rather study them as a deliberate
task, something I decide to do with my time.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          13-Nov-99 18:02:22
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 16:36:24
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>David H. McCoy
>And AS I SAID, an MB can be had for $130 and a CPU for $98 which is 
>FAR less than your $450 price tag.

>If you paid $600 for a "MOTHERBOARD AND CPU", unless it was amongst the
fastest 
>Athlon or Celeron on the market, you are an idiot.

I think what is happening is that, the majority of OS/2 zealots are
technically illiterate people who don't know anything about the market
and are being bilked by people who realize this and are taking
advantage of them.

Look at the evidence: They all claim that they can't buy a PC without
Windows installed. You and I and other, more technically savvy and
knowledgeable computer consumers do this routinely. They claim that
they have to pay $600 for a motherboard and CPU. You and I and other,
more technically savvy, and knowledgeable computer consumers routinely
pay much less. They have even reported having to pay much, much higher
prices for software that you and I and others buy for less. Even Bob
Germer is recently reporting that he's having trouble buying a modem.
Tholen can't even figure out how to examine the contents of a zip
file. Etc.

In conclusion, it is clear that the remaining OS/2 enduser base is
comprised mostly of people who are NOT technically oriented. They
mostly are not developers, computer resellers, journalists for the
computer press, etc. They appear to be merely hobbyists with a boner
for a niche OS, and a penchant of telling tall tales about their
alleged "experience" and "knowledge".

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          13-Nov-99 18:09:26
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 16:36:24
Subj: Re: Why can't it die?

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>>>Mike Ruskai
>>>People abandon OS/2, because they
>>>convince themselves that they have to, whether or not they actually do.

>>"We" didn't leave it because we had to -- we left it because we WANTED
>>to.

>>Some of us got a better deal from a companies other than IBM. But
>>then, I suppose that if you're a masochist who loves being treated
>>like dirt, IBM is your ticket.

>If that were truly the case, then you wouldn't be posting here.  

Quite the contrary: by keeping annoying, clueless, fanatically deluded
people like you busy in this newsgroup, that ensures that you aren't
otherwise bothering people who don't want or need to be distracted by
hobbyists with a boner for a niche OS and serve no useful purpose to
anyone. (Indeed, I'm sure even IBM is glad that sorts like you are
kept busy so that you don't have time to annoy IBM with stuff about
what IBM considers to be an irrelevant, phased out product).

>>>It's like the Devo song, Freedom of Choice.  The final refrain is,
>>>"Freedom of choice - what you got.  Freedom from choice - what you
>>>want..."

>>Hate to break the news to you -- Mark Mothersbaugh uses Windows, not
>>OS/2, in his sound production studio.

>I care?

I should think that you'd care that the people you're quoting find
your position to be so ridiculous that they're actually taking
positions that are contrary to positions that you've taken. Obviously,
Mothersbaugh doesn't think that OS/2 is better than Windows, and
certainly sees nothing wrong with using Windows.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ispy@groovyshow.com                               13-Nov-99 10:59:07
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 16:36:24
Subj: Public awareness week - ebay is allowing illegal activities to occue

From: "Kelly Robinson" <ispy@groovyshow.com>

Sorry to intrude, but people need to hear about this crime which ebay itself
refuses to stop.  And it needs to be stopped or at least the people informed
so they won't fall for the trick which makes these unscrupulous bastards
rich!  The file is virus-free otherwise my own system would be decimated by
now but feel free to check for yourselves, too.

These people are coldbloodedly ripping you off.  And $3.50 per "bid" seems
like nothing, but when you have 100 people bidding at the same time it
quickly adds up!!!

Forget the fact they say ON THE AUCTION BLOCK that you don't even need to
pay shipping and handling charges (yet the information they send you
requires you to spend a day at a seminar and spend maybe 40 miles one way
driving to get there - if that ain't shipping, what the heck is?)

Find out how often Microsoft holds the seminars (they do exist but only
happen at very specific times and at very specific locations) and where and
you'll know you've been tricked.  Also they also include free 'bonuses'
(mainly to cheer you up after they admit they've misled you) and most of
those are unethical if not illegal.  Some are okay but most...  My god, they
even encourage a practice (as a public service, no doubt) about how to win
an auction for the lowest possible price - thus sodomizing everybody
involved (and not in the fun honeymoon way, either).  They name ebay by name
and ebay openly discourages the practice.  [hey, if you're going to rip
people off you may as well openly throw mud in your benefactor/auction
provider's fat face.]

And you noticed that they prominantly mention Windows 98 and Office 2000 in
their auction.  Since Microsoft doesn't do the free-release seminars for
products which have been out for months or years, combined with the fact
Microsoft does not freely give away products which they have already
released for some time, these auctions are downright illegal.

Here, I'll piss on all of them and give all of you the same thing for free -
thus eliminating for them any profit they do not deserve.

It's virus free (I had no problems).  It merely extracts a bunch of txt,
html, and rtf files (best viewed on Microsoft Word, go figure) onto your HD.
You can virus check it if you want, but I've not had any problems.  Or you
can simply delete it.

I am merely doing something which will hopefully help to spread the word and
get these frauds offline for good, since they are clearly misleading people
and disguise their words just enough so they 'apologize' without directly
admitting they've screwed you - again, not in the fun honeymoon way.

I have talked to ebay once and got blown off.  I have recently sent them
*another* letter going into extreme detail about the fraud.  If they
continue, I have full intent to get Microsoft involved (who at this point
will happily destroy anybody who is engaged in illegal practices concerning
their product for obvious reasons regarding a certain monopoly status,
provided I can prove it.  And I can prove it rather easily.)

Ebay is liable for the actions of people who use their service, despite
their amusing disclaimers.  They just can't sit and say that there is a
factor of trust and honesty on the part of the bidder.  Ebay is offering a
service and shouldn't allow any sort of vermin to hurt other people for the
vermin's own gain - and $3.50 (if not more) seems like little, but multiply
it by 100 winning bids and it is no longer little.  Ebay is simply aiding
and abetting these losers by looking at the truth and promptly ignoring it.

I implore you to genuinely look at this issue and decide for yourself what
ebay and these losers are doing.  I don't care if you use the information to
do the same despicable thing as they are since is still ebay's ultimate
responsibility to get its head out of its nasty part.  I'd rather hope you'd
see what is happening and help in ending it by spreading the word.  What is
happening is clearly illegal (misrepresentation is illegal, misleading
consumers is illegal.  What more needs to be said?  You can't say "Get Win98
for free!" when you provide information which damns itself by saying MS does
this to promote new products - NOT products which have been out for several
months!  Right there is concrete irrefutable evidence that illegal
activities are going on.)





--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: uno@40th.com                                      13-Nov-99 20:08:22
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 16:36:24
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com)

James Himmelman? (jhimmel@i-2000.com?) wrote (Sat, 13 Nov 1999 15:01:22 GMT):
>instance, my CD-R came with Windows recording software, but I had to 
>purchase OS/2 CD recording software. I'm comfortable with that. OS/2

Small potatoes.  In a few short years, everything will be
for naught.  Unless, as at least one person has written,
you're going to be like the professor locked up in his
tiny office typing away with Wordstar 2.0 (just a funny,
funny image).  If you're thinking it won't happen to you,
think again.  But, right, you're not at all like the
professor, not unless everything you have and do now is
all you ever will want to do.

>Is there something wrong with that, uno?

That's something only you can answer.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: retsiemynnaht@spammoc.beoohaygon...               13-Nov-99 15:18:03
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 16:36:24
Subj: Re: Why can't it die?

Message sender: retsiemynnaht@spammoc.beoohaygone.net

From: "Mike Ruskai" <retsiemynnaht@spammoc.beoohaygone.net>

On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 18:09:52 GMT, Jeff Glatt wrote:

>>>>Mike Ruskai
>>>>People abandon OS/2, because they
>>>>convince themselves that they have to, whether or not they actually do.
>
>>>"We" didn't leave it because we had to -- we left it because we WANTED
>>>to.
>
>>>Some of us got a better deal from a companies other than IBM. But
>>>then, I suppose that if you're a masochist who loves being treated
>>>like dirt, IBM is your ticket.
>
>>If that were truly the case, then you wouldn't be posting here.  
>
>Quite the contrary: by keeping annoying, clueless, fanatically deluded
>people like you busy in this newsgroup, that ensures that you aren't
>otherwise bothering people who don't want or need to be distracted by
>hobbyists with a boner for a niche OS and serve no useful purpose to
>anyone. (Indeed, I'm sure even IBM is glad that sorts like you are
>kept busy so that you don't have time to annoy IBM with stuff about
>what IBM considers to be an irrelevant, phased out product).

I see wit and intelligence aren't in your repertoire.  Fanaticism and
delusion, however, are clearly within your grasp.  Keep fighting the bad
fight.  Maybe one day you'll get that warm fuzzy feeling you're
desparately seeking.

>>>>It's like the Devo song, Freedom of Choice.  The final refrain is,
>>>>"Freedom of choice - what you got.  Freedom from choice - what you
>>>>want..."
>
>>>Hate to break the news to you -- Mark Mothersbaugh uses Windows, not
>>>OS/2, in his sound production studio.
>
>>I care?
>
>I should think that you'd care that the people you're quoting find
>your position to be so ridiculous that they're actually taking
>positions that are contrary to positions that you've taken. Obviously,
>Mothersbaugh doesn't think that OS/2 is better than Windows, and
>certainly sees nothing wrong with using Windows.

Reading comprehension is not among your strengths, either.  Nor,
apparently, is fine motor control.  In your clumsy attempts to manipulate
a newsreader program (and we're all amazed that you've reached this point,
no doubt through hundres of hours of tedious practice), you snipped the
rest of my response, explaining why I don't care, and why it's irrelevant
that a person who wrote a 19-year-old song that was quoted for underlying
sentiment doesn't use OS/2.

Clearly, such comparitively advanced modes of thinking are unavailable to
you, but it would aid the understanding of innocent bystanders who through
some tragic accident end up reading your message.  More to the point, it
would allow them to see that you simply defy understanding, as do all
examples of irrationality.


--
 - Mike

Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TLF (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: retsiemynnaht@spammoc.beoohaygon...               13-Nov-99 15:24:00
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 16:36:24
Subj: Re: Public awareness week - ebay is allowing illegal activities to occu

Message sender: retsiemynnaht@spammoc.beoohaygone.net

From: "Mike Ruskai" <retsiemynnaht@spammoc.beoohaygone.net>

On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:59:15 -0600, Kelly Robinson wrote:

>Sorry to intrude, but people need to hear about this crime which ebay itself
[snip]
>Ebay is liable for the actions of people who use their service, despite
>their amusing disclaimers.  They just can't sit and say that there is a
[snip]

No, they're not.  They provide a medium for information exchange.  That's
all.  Your only protection against bidding stupidly is your right to file
fraud charges against the seller.

People have already tried and failed to hold eBay responsible for frauds
committed by its customers.

What you suggest makes the federal government responsible for the moron
who sideswiped you on the Interstate.  

Perhaps that puts your claim in a form which allows you to recognize how
ludicrous it is.


--
 - Mike

Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TLF (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jdc0014@InfoNET.st-johns.nf.ca                    13-Nov-99 21:17:05
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 19:47:01
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: jdc0014@InfoNET.st-johns.nf.ca (John Hong)

uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) wrote:

: for naught.  Unless, as at least one person has written,
: you're going to be like the professor locked up in his
: tiny office typing away with Wordstar 2.0 (just a funny,
: funny image).

	Wow, if you thought that was funny, you'll *love* this.  I also 
know of one guy still using a Commodore 128 with C-GEOS in order to do 
his term paper work on a 9-pin dot matrix printer.  He can't afford 
anything else since tuition fees have been on the up and up.
	Not as funny, but I also know another still working on a Tandy 
1000 (forgot which one, HX, RL, or TX).  As well, there is another that I 
know still using one of those old Mac's (blue monochrome screen), but I 
think he has upgraded know to a used PC.
	There are also quite a few people around the world still using 
Microsoft Word for DOS.  Microsoft has since given Word 5.5 for DOS away 
as a free download for them as a complimentary upgrade.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: St. John's InfoNET (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org                      13-Nov-99 13:45:16
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 19:47:01
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org>

Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote in message
news:382d7925$1$obot$mr2ice@news.pics.com...
> On <80iqv5$evt$1@news.campuscwix.net>, on 11/12/99 at 08:55 PM,
>    "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> said:
>
> > Microsoft has muscle in the computing world.  They have exercised that
> > muscle, much like IBM, Sun, Oracle, Novell, Netscape and Digital
> > Equipment had when they had the muscle. The net effect on the consumer
> > has been negligible, that is the only point an anti-trust case is
> > concerned with. The blatant hypocrisy of some of these plaintiffs
> > (complainants I think is the more proper word as DOJ is acting on their
> > behalf as plaintiff) of testifying that MS was improper in using tactics
> > that they, themselves, used in similar situations is deplorable.
>
> Even if I grant that what you say about IBM, Sun, Oracle, Novell,
> Netscape, and DEC were true, which of course is a blatant lie on your
> part, the consumer was hurt and badly hurt in many ways.
>

That is the truth, to the best of my recollection.


> 1. Since I had no desire to run DOS or Windows I had no desire to pay for
> same. But MicroSoft via its per processor licensing policy with virtually
> every PC manufacturer made me pay for worthless crap. Collectively, my
> clients and I have purchased well over 10,000 machines in the past 5
> years. Even if the added cost were only $30 per machine, that is $300,000.
> Multiply that by the tens of millions of PC that do not run Windows.
> That's a lot of hurt on consumers. Remember every company as well as every
> individual who buys a machine is a consumer.
>

Then why the F*** do you care one way or the other.  And, no OEMs are
business partners not consumers.

<trimmed moronic rambling from:>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
> MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
> Aut Pax Aut Bellum
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Hipcrime Vocabulary Organization (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org                      13-Nov-99 13:48:23
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 19:47:01
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org>

ZnU <znu@znu.dhs.org> wrote in message
news:znu-1311991021420001@192.168.0.2...
> In article <80j7s5$l15$1@news.campuscwix.net>, "Chad Mulligan"
<trimmed>
> >
> > > There is essentially no question that MS did the things presented in
the
> > > findings of fact. Argue all you want about whether they are/should be
> > > illegal. But they did happen.
> > >
> >
> > Never said they didn't happen, have you ever played poker?
>
> If you agree these events happened, why are you attempting to cast doubt
> on the credibility of the witnesses?
>

The threats and so forth are a normal part of negotiations at that level.
IAC, IBM had made their decision vis OS/2 eight months or more before the
alleged audit threat by MS.

> > The question of
> > legality is yet to be determined, that's the next phase the burden of
proof
> > on the prosecution now is to prove that the consumer was damaged.
>
> Er... No. Read the findings of fact. The prosecution has already proven
> that the consumer was harmed. Given the language used in the findings of
> fact, it's obvious the the judge considers some of Microsoft's actions
> illegal. The only real question now is what he plans to do about it.
>
> --
> All parts should go together without forcing.  You must remember that the
> parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.  Therefore, if you
> can't get them together again, there must be a reason.  By all means, do
> not use a hammer.
>            --IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>
> ZnU <znu@znu.dhs.org> | <http://znu.dhs.org>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Hipcrime Vocabulary Organization (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org                      13-Nov-99 13:50:04
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 19:47:01
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org>

Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote in message
news:382ea126.758407@news.borg.com...
> >Chad Mulligan
> >IBM's complaints are the most ludicrous of the whole bunch. This is a
> >company that has been on the dock with these same charges several times
in
> >the last half century and have never really cared about the 'Personal
> >Computing' market except as a sideline.  Their claim that MS forced them
to
> >stop supporting OS/2 or they'd be cut off of being OEM's for Win95 is
> >ludicrous.  I was an avid OS/2 user and fan during this period, and would
> >still be if IBM were ever serious about delivering it to it's potential,
> >they aren't and never were.
>
> Absolutely. In fact, one measurement I use to gauge whether a person
> pontificating in this newsgroup really knows anything about the
> computer business, or is merely some bored hobbyist with a boner for a
> niche OS and a sense of exaggeration (does *anyone* here actually
> believe Bob Germer's claims about his experiences with computers, as
> opposed to being a hobbyist who has read too many computer magazine
> articles by people who actually do the things he fancies himself
> doing?), is based upon their perception of IBM's interest in the PC
> market. And soon as they utter something like "IBM is really
> interested in selling $90 items, a few at a time, to a bunch of third
> parties", then I know that the person doesn't know squat about either
> IBM or the market

Thank you, I was wondering if I was the only one who noticed that.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Hipcrime Vocabulary Organization (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          13-Nov-99 17:23:22
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 19:47:01
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, Bob Germer said :

<snip>
> There is only one difference between Bill Gates' organization and
> organized crime. He is so brazen he does it in the open, rather than
> hiding. He is a criminal and MS is a corrupt organization. Gates and his
> henchmen are lucky that the DOJ and the state attornies general brought
> civil rather than criminal charges.

Let's not get too carried away now. There's no luck here. MS's charges
are civil and not criminal. Simple. No luck there. :)

Also the fact that you are unable to get machines without windows
installed is just a tad incredible since I do this all the time. I
never get a machine with windows or any OS for that matter
pre-installed unless I specifically desire this.

The part about the modem is also a tad incredible as well. I have no
problems getting modems that aren't winmodems. They are available all
around.
-- 
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: <alliem 'at' wtjam 'dot' net>
         

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            13-Nov-99 23:22:23
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 21:18:18
Subj: Re: Why can't it die?

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 20:18:07, "Mike Ruskai" 
<retsiemynnaht@spammoc.beoohaygone.net> wrote:

> On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 18:09:52 GMT, Jeff Glatt wrote:
> 
> >>>>Mike Ruskai
> >>>>People abandon OS/2, because they
> >>>>convince themselves that they have to, whether or not they actually do.
> >
> >>>"We" didn't leave it because we had to -- we left it because we WANTED
> >>>to.
> >
> >>>Some of us got a better deal from a companies other than IBM. But
> >>>then, I suppose that if you're a masochist who loves being treated
> >>>like dirt, IBM is your ticket.
> >
> >>If that were truly the case, then you wouldn't be posting here.  
> >
> >Quite the contrary: by keeping annoying, clueless, fanatically deluded
> >people like you busy in this newsgroup, that ensures that you aren't
> >otherwise bothering people who don't want or need to be distracted by
> >hobbyists with a boner for a niche OS and serve no useful purpose to
> >anyone. (Indeed, I'm sure even IBM is glad that sorts like you are
> >kept busy so that you don't have time to annoy IBM with stuff about
> >what IBM considers to be an irrelevant, phased out product).
> 
> I see wit and intelligence aren't in your repertoire.  Fanaticism and
> delusion, however, are clearly within your grasp.  Keep fighting the bad
> fight.  Maybe one day you'll get that warm fuzzy feeling you're
> desparately seeking.
> 
Errr... Mike, that's called "incontinence".

However, thinking about it... You might be right.

[snip]

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          13-Nov-99 23:37:11
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 21:18:18
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>>>Chad Mulligan
>>>IBM's complaints are the most ludicrous of the whole bunch. This is a
>>>company that has been on the dock with these same charges several times
>>>in
>>>the last half century and have never really cared about the 'Personal
>>>Computing' market except as a sideline.  Their claim that MS forced them
>>>to
>>>stop supporting OS/2 or they'd be cut off of being OEM's for Win95 is
>>>ludicrous.  I was an avid OS/2 user and fan during this period, and would
>>>still be if IBM were ever serious about delivering it to it's potential,
>>>they aren't and never were.

>>Jeff Glatt
>>Absolutely. In fact, one measurement I use to gauge whether a person
>>pontificating in this newsgroup really knows anything about the
>>computer business, or is merely some bored hobbyist with a boner for a
>>niche OS and a sense of exaggeration (does *anyone* here actually
>>believe Bob Germer's claims about his experiences with computers, as
>>opposed to being a hobbyist who has read too many computer magazine
>>articles by people who actually do the things he fancies himself
>>doing?), is based upon their perception of IBM's interest in the PC
>>market. And soon as they utter something like "IBM is really
>>interested in selling $90 items, a few at a time, to a bunch of third
>>parties", then I know that the person doesn't know squat about either
>>IBM or the market

>Thank you, I was wondering if I was the only one who noticed that.

Oh no, not at all. MANY, MANY people notice this. It's just a very,
very small group of masochists known collectively as "OS/2 Advocates"
who are not swift enough to avoid being used and ignobly discarded by
a corporation that regards them as of no value whatsoever. IBM only
cares about Fortune 500 companies that put in huge orders for
expensive IBM products.

What is truly amusing is that these people are such blatantly gullible
suckers and puppets of IBM, and don't even know it. They should hang
their heads in shame for even attempting to portray users of other
operating systems as "lemmings" (or any other epitath that suggests
manipulation) given the history of how OS/2 Advocates have been
horrendously manipulated by IBM to IBM's sole advantage

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          13-Nov-99 23:45:10
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 21:18:18
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>>Bob Germer
>>There is only one difference between Bill Gates' organization and
>>organized crime. He is so brazen he does it in the open, rather than
>>hiding. He is a criminal and MS is a corrupt organization. Gates and his
>>henchmen are lucky that the DOJ and the state attornies general brought
>>civil rather than criminal charges.

>Hobbyist
>Let's not get too carried away now.

Oh, I think that he should be carried away... to a padded cell.

>Also the fact that you are unable to get machines without windows
>installed is just a tad incredible since I do this all the time. I
>never get a machine with windows or any OS for that matter
>pre-installed unless I specifically desire this.

Me too. But you have to remember, OS/2 Advocates such as Bob Germer do
not have the competence nor knowledge to do things that people such as
you and I, and David McCoy and others who don't use OS/2, do routinely
and easily.

OS/2 Advocates today are, by and large, not computer savvy people.
They seem to know only how to manage to get OS/2 loaded on their
computers, but beyond that, have incredible amounts of trouble buying
computer equipment, using zip utilities, running and setting up other
operating systems (ie, most of them seem unable to even get Windows 95
running -- a feat that even computer novices are accomplishing in
record numbers daily), etc. You name it -- they seem to have
incredibly difficulty with it if it's not some OS/2 quirk.

These people define the word "helpless". But I suppose that it's sort
of fitting being that they're IBM customers, and IBM has rapidly
gained a reputation in the business as being a company that can't help
tripping over its own two feet at every step. IBM is the computer
company for bumblers.

>The part about the modem is also a tad incredible as well. I have no
>problems getting modems that aren't winmodems. They are available all
>around.

I know. But see my note above.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         13-Nov-99 23:33:12
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 21:18:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:

CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so inclined.

I am deleting all but the most recent new text.

Curtis Bass writes:

> Actually, Dave repeated this question a total of five times in this
> one posting alone,

Because you demonstrated that you still haven't comprehended the logic
involved a total of five times.

> and several, perhaps dozens of other times throughout this thread.

Because you've demonstrated that you still haven't comprehended the
logic involved perhaps dozens of other times throughout this thread.

> Okay, here is the answer, Dave:
>
> "Run the self-extraction on a system that supports OS/2 applications."

I'm not interested in your answer anymore, Curtis; I'm interested in
getting you to comprehend the logic involved in hopes that you might
finally retract your ridiculous "inept" claim.  Using your brand of
reasoning, Isaac Newton was "inept" because he didn't come up with
relativity.

> I have already posted that answer once before.

But you still haven't demonstrated that you comprehend the logic
involved, given that you haven't retracted your ridiculous "inept"
claim.

> The problem is that, even if you had done so with your file, you still
> would have received error messages as a result.

I already had a successful runtime environment installation, Curtis.

> If Mike Timbol decided to run OS/2, and if he tried to extract the
> contents of *your* JAVAINUF.EXE, he would have failed.

That doesn't mean he would have reported the failure, Curtis, especially
considering the fact that he was interested in promoting his "bullshit"
response to Joseph.

> If you would claim that the quoted answer above vindicates you, then
> we must assume that the file is intact,

The file need not be intact to comprehend the logic involved, Curtis.
There's nothing "inept" about the logic.  You're simply clinging to
whatever straws you can grasp, just like Timbol did with his "bullshit"
response.

> because it would have to be in order for a self-extraction under OS/2
> to be successful.

I already had a successful runtime environment installation, Curtis.

> Unfortunately, if the file was intact, then InfoZip would have also
> been successful in extracting the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE,

I already had an extracted classes.zip file from the other runtime
environment, Curtis.

> and you would never have received the error messages that led you to
> the erroneous conclusion in the first place.

You're hypothesizing a chronology of events that did not take place,
Curtis.

> Catch-22, Dave.

Illogical, for the reasons given above.

> You lose.

How ironic, coming from the person who has yet to substantiate his
"inept" claim.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          13-Nov-99 23:58:11
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 21:18:18
Subj: Re: Why can't it die?

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>>>>>Mike Ruskai
>>>>>People abandon OS/2, because they
>>>>>convince themselves that they have to, whether or not they actually do.

>>>>"We" didn't leave it because we had to -- we left it because we WANTED
>>>>to.

>>>>Some of us got a better deal from a companies other than IBM. But
>>>>then, I suppose that if you're a masochist who loves being treated
>>>>like dirt, IBM is your ticket.

>>>If that were truly the case, then you wouldn't be posting here.  

>>Quite the contrary: by keeping annoying, clueless, fanatically deluded
>>people like you busy in this newsgroup, that ensures that you aren't
>>otherwise bothering people who don't want or need to be distracted by
>>hobbyists with a boner for a niche OS and serve no useful purpose to
>>anyone. (Indeed, I'm sure even IBM is glad that sorts like you are
>>kept busy so that you don't have time to annoy IBM with stuff about
>>what IBM considers to be an irrelevant, phased out product).

>I see wit and intelligence aren't in your repertoire.

You don't see wit and intelligence anywhere you look, but that's
because you're incapable of grasping it. Your clueless statement at
the top of this post demonstrates how little you actually know about
people and things about which you're commenting.

Your quote of a Windows user below is also equally clueless.

>>>>>It's like the Devo song, Freedom of Choice.  The final refrain is,
>>>>>"Freedom of choice - what you got.  Freedom from choice - what you
>>>>>want..."

>>>>Hate to break the news to you -- Mark Mothersbaugh uses Windows, not
>>>>OS/2, in his sound production studio.

>>>I care?

>>I should think that you'd care that the people you're quoting find
>>your position to be so ridiculous that they're actually taking
>>positions that are contrary to positions that you've taken. Obviously,
>>Mothersbaugh doesn't think that OS/2 is better than Windows, and
>>certainly sees nothing wrong with using Windows.

>Reading comprehension is not among your strengths, either.

Ah, another Ian "The Moron" Tholen wannabe. It's funny how much you
zealots emulate your internet "Kook of the Month". That's
understandable behavior from social misfits though.

>you snipped the
>rest of my response, explaining why I don't care, and why it's irrelevant
>that a person who wrote a 19-year-old song that was quoted for underlying
>sentiment doesn't use OS/2.

That's because it was absurdly pointless rationalization that doesn't
change the fact that, in your INEPTLY condescending glorification of
people who choose not to use Windows, you quoted a song lyric written
by someone who chose Windows.

But then, irony is obviously well beyond your intellectual grasp.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: znu@znu.dhs.org                                   13-Nov-99 23:50:09
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 21:18:18
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: znu@znu.dhs.org (ZnU)

In article <80km88$bll$1@news.campuscwix.net>, "Chad Mulligan"
<cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote:

> ZnU <znu@znu.dhs.org> wrote in message
> news:znu-1311991021420001@192.168.0.2...
> > In article <80j7s5$l15$1@news.campuscwix.net>, "Chad Mulligan"
> <trimmed>
> > >
> > > > There is essentially no question that MS did the things presented in
> the
> > > > findings of fact. Argue all you want about whether they are/should be
> > > > illegal. But they did happen.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Never said they didn't happen, have you ever played poker?
> >
> > If you agree these events happened, why are you attempting to cast doubt
> > on the credibility of the witnesses?
> >
> 
> The threats and so forth are a normal part of negotiations at that level.
> IAC, IBM had made their decision vis OS/2 eight months or more before the
> alleged audit threat by MS.

Threats of profit destruction are a normal part of business deals between
companies that aren't even competitors (eg MS and OEMs)? How about
arranging market divisions? Is that a normal part of business dealing as
well?

-- 
All parts should go together without forcing.  You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.  Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason.  By all means, do
not use a hammer.
           --IBM maintenance manual, 1925

ZnU <znu@znu.dhs.org> | <http://znu.dhs.org>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Black Helicopter People (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: wsonna@ibm.net                                    13-Nov-99 23:57:10
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 21:18:18
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: wsonna@ibm.net (William Sonna)

On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 17:54:37, jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt) 
wrote:

> >Bob Germer
> >Since I had no desire to run DOS or Windows I had no desire to pay for
> >same. But MicroSoft via its per processor licensing policy with virtually
> >every PC manufacturer made me pay for worthless crap.
> 
> That's because you're an incompetent consumer. I routinely buy
> computers without any OS installed. (I always insist upon installing
> the OS myself). You simply don't know how to do this.
>

I routinely buy them, too.  But I'm sick of no-name cheapos.  So tell 
me, which major manufacturer will sell you a computer without Windows?
All I've ever heard is "we don't sell them that way".
 
[snip]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: wsonna@ibm.net                                    14-Nov-99 00:00:13
  To: All                                               13-Nov-99 21:18:18
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: wsonna@ibm.net (William Sonna)

On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 22:23:44, Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> 
wrote:

> On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, Bob Germer said :
> 
> <snip>
> > There is only one difference between Bill Gates' organization and
> > organized crime. He is so brazen he does it in the open, rather than
> > hiding. He is a criminal and MS is a corrupt organization. Gates and his
> > henchmen are lucky that the DOJ and the state attornies general brought
> > civil rather than criminal charges.
> 
> Let's not get too carried away now. There's no luck here. MS's charges
> are civil and not criminal. Simple. No luck there. :)
> 
> Also the fact that you are unable to get machines without windows
> installed is just a tad incredible since I do this all the time. I
> never get a machine with windows or any OS for that matter
> pre-installed unless I specifically desire this.
> 

Could you please tell us which major manufacturers sell their 
computers without Windows?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: d.s.darrow@nvinet.com                             13-Nov-99 19:39:17
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 14:46:24
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: "Doug Darrow" <d.s.darrow@nvinet.com>

On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:21:59 GMT, Stan Goodman wrote:

>> Somebody's running an abusive monopoly?  Who?

Abusive monopoly? Sounds like some kind of kinky board game to me.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: d.s.darrow@nvinet.com                             13-Nov-99 19:45:28
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 14:46:24
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: "Doug Darrow" <d.s.darrow@nvinet.com>

On 12 Nov 1999 14:32:19 GMT, Lars P Ormberg wrote:

>To say Microsoft "abused its position" is to say that, my God, Microsoft
>competed in the market (and didn't fail at it).

We've no problem with M$ competing OR succeeding in an open market.
It's when they have established themselves as that overwhelming success
with one product, then say you will ALSO sell this OTHER product or you
cannot buy and sell the first product that they step over the line to
abuse. Of course there are other issues involved then the alleged
"tying" abuse.  


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             15-Nov-99 10:47:03
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 14:46:24
Subj: Windows posting activitiy...

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>

It seems that our resident "Windows Advocates" here, McCoy, Glatt, and
Robinson, have been posting here more frequently and their posts are
more antagonstic than usual.  Is this a response to Microsoft's recent
court defeats?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kjh@kljd.dk                                       15-Nov-99 20:34:22
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 14:46:24
Subj: ###### GET YOUR PentiumII-366 FOR ONLY $9.99 #######';glh g0[65o hfptiy

From: dkjh <kjh@kljd.dk>

--------------7AD185C6AC721F4007C114B2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


###### GET YOUR PentiumII-366 FOR ONLY $9.99 #######';glh g0[65o hfptiy'
ftok-r0

--------------7AD185C6AC721F4007C114B2
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>
<BODY
onload="window.open('http://www.chat.ru/~pers_comp/index.htm','RemoteWindow')">

<BR>###### GET YOUR PentiumII-366 FOR ONLY $9.99 #######';glh g0[65o hfptiy'
ftok-r0</HTML>

--------------7AD185C6AC721F4007C114B2--



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: UseNet Server, Inc.  http://www.usenetserver.com 
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          15-Nov-99 18:49:22
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 14:46:24
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>jansens_at_ibm_dot_net
>I haven't been following the thread, and it's just pure 
>luck my iddy biddy eye fell on this

Isn't it interesting that, for "some" reason, Karel *never* seems to
be "following" any of the numerous threads in which Tholen is arguing
his idiocy with others?

And yet Karel The Obviously Clueless Newbie felt compelled to enter
the newsgroup, and defend Tholen against what he then dismissed as
"unfair" responses to such idiocy. In response to that, a number of
people, including even Brad Wardell, informed Karel of why people say
the things that they say about, and to, Tholen. (Also, Karel
mysteriously and inexplicably "lost" the digest of Tholen quotes I
provided, after making a bogus, unproven claim that they had been
doctored. Competency is obviously not his forte).

Here it is weeks later, and he still hasn't a clue why, even after
more and more people have been explaining it to him, and he's still
attempting to justify/excuse the absurd nonsense that Tholen posts in
this newsgroup. Is this guy slow, or what?

BTW: This is typical of "Tholen supporters". They're not particularly
swift. Check out Bennie Nelson's "Tholen detractors are unskilled at
logic" and "emotionally blocked" series of posts for some of the most
cluelessly naive pontificating this newsgroup has ever seen.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          15-Nov-99 18:05:05
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 14:46:24
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Joseph
>I think the guy is mad

Oh yes, Boob Germer is definitely "mad"... as in insane.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          15-Nov-99 18:12:03
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:21
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Brent Davies
>Wait, wait, wait. He says that he was working on systems that, at the time,
>cost millions of dollars, and that all of this happened in the early 1950s.
>If he's just now aproaching his 60th birthday, that would place him at
>around 10-years-of-age during his experience with these million+ dollar
>systems.  And who owned and used these systems back in those days?  The
>government, research organizations, and probably defense contractors.  None
>of which would allow anyone less than 25 anywhere near these machines, and
>even then you had to have damn good reason to be around, and a pretty heafty
>security clearance.

>And I don't believe for a second that he's 75+ years old.  So basically he's
>blowing smoke about having worked on these systems in the '50s.  No?

Yes, he is. It's obvious that everything he knows about computers, and
his entire "work experience", have been pilfered from some PC Magazine
articles. He's just too clueless about too many things to be what he
claims he is

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          15-Nov-99 18:09:29
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:21
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Boob Germer
>I celebrated my 14th birthday in Binghampton at IBM school for the 604
>electronic calculator/521 reader punch. By the time I entered high school,
>I could wire virtually every IBM breadboard machine they rented at the
>time since we had all but a couple of them.

And yet, you need some twenty-something year old "tech" at Dell to put
together computers for your "clients".

Yep, we're believing every word of this. We sure are.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          15-Nov-99 18:20:01
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:21
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>>uno@40th.com
>>why be afraid of what I have to say?  Are you scared?

>Joseph
>If he were scared or insecure he'd be in the Windows newsgroups behaving like
>yourself.

Poor Joesph. He can't even keep track of whether he thinks that OS/2
users are scared or not scared of Microsoft. Of course, given how
WRONG he has been over the years about his market predictions, well
documented by Steven Den Beste, Joe has always been quite confused.

Message-ID: <382F7B39.A9180508@ibm.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 22:17:13 -0500
From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>
Newsgroups:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy
,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!
NNTP-Posting-Host: 32.100.197.240

This is a person [ie, Boob Germer, an OS/2 fanatic] heavily invested
into Microsoft Corporation.  We're talking about money and prospect of
more money as MS's stock has been a sure thing for so long.  I think
the guy is mad and a bit scared.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          15-Nov-99 14:13:28
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:21
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

Jeff,
You're at it, again.  Do you ever tire of posting these cliched
and baseless ramblings?  Don't you have a Windows program that
needs work?

You haven't done a very good job of following this thread,
because, otherwise, you would have read where I disagreed 
with Tholen.  Not that the truth in this matter would change
your mind.

But, concerning your invitation for others to "check out" my
other posts, I concur: Gentle Reader, do not, under any 
circumstances, believe what Jeff Glatt writes about me.  Read
my own words and come to your own conclusions.

Bennie Nelson

Jeff Glatt wrote:
> 
> >jansens_at_ibm_dot_net
> >I haven't been following the thread, and it's just pure
> >luck my iddy biddy eye fell on this
> 
> Isn't it interesting that, for "some" reason, Karel *never* seems to
> be "following" any of the numerous threads in which Tholen is arguing
> his idiocy with others?
> 
> And yet Karel The Obviously Clueless Newbie felt compelled to enter
> the newsgroup, and defend Tholen against what he then dismissed as
> "unfair" responses to such idiocy. In response to that, a number of
> people, including even Brad Wardell, informed Karel of why people say
> the things that they say about, and to, Tholen. (Also, Karel
> mysteriously and inexplicably "lost" the digest of Tholen quotes I
> provided, after making a bogus, unproven claim that they had been
> doctored. Competency is obviously not his forte).
> 
> Here it is weeks later, and he still hasn't a clue why, even after
> more and more people have been explaining it to him, and he's still
> attempting to justify/excuse the absurd nonsense that Tholen posts in
> this newsgroup. Is this guy slow, or what?
> 
> BTW: This is typical of "Tholen supporters". They're not particularly
> swift. Check out Bennie Nelson's "Tholen detractors are unskilled at
> logic" and "emotionally blocked" series of posts for some of the most
> cluelessly naive pontificating this newsgroup has ever seen.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          15-Nov-99 18:36:00
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:21
Subj: Tholen's Hypocrisy and Illogic Exposed Once again

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

As most of you well know, I maintain an archive of Tholen's idiocy.
Yes, he truly is a dimwit who not only lacks common sense and is quite
clearly technically illiterate, but he also relies upon extremely
dumb, empty platitudes as responses to others, and otherwise engages
in mindlessly idiotic arguments where his only purpose is to harrass
those people whose opinions he doesn't want to hear.

Given such a motivation, and his typical method of carrying it out, it
stands to reason that Tholen is often going to spew out truly idiotic
responses that are inherently illogical and extremely hypocritical.

Here, we have yet one more, in a long series, of such examples.

Recently, he has been arguing that it is correct to compare OS/2's
1.18 JAVA engine to Java 1.2 and conclude that "OS/2 implements Java
1.2 functionality". His whole argument hinges upon his insistence that
the above comparison doesn't imply "all", even though it's not stated.

And yet, below, he makes the mindlessly hypocritical statement that
the word "all" is "implicit in a similarity comparison".

Yes, another example of "Tholen Logic" otherwise known as "Tholen
Cliches".

Like I said, the *only* people "impressed" with this guy's
"intelligence" and "sense of logic" are dummies with a boner for some
irrelevant niche product... you know, like Karel or Bennie "Tholen's
detractors are unskilled at Logic and emotionally blocked" Nelson.

From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
Subject: Re: Glatt Digest, volume 2450455
Date: 8 Jan 1997 01:29:35 GMT
Organization: University of Hawaii
Message-ID: <5aut9v$e1k@news.Hawaii.Edu>

>Did I say "all" anywhere?

It's implicit in a similarity comparison.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mcbrides@erols.com                                15-Nov-99 12:21:05
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:21
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: mcbrides@erols.com (Jerry McBride)

In article <80o9l2$3j5$3@news.campuscwix.net>,
"Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote:
>
>Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote in message
>news:382f97c3$1$obot$mr2ice@news.pics.com...
>> On <TVUvOO0GyJdvFRsNswIaTa+zWBcU@4ax.com>, on 11/14/99 at 09:09 PM,
>>    Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> said:
>>
>>
>> > Hmmm, but don't these big OEMs sell preassembled parts with their big
>> > names stamped on it?
>>
>> Not IBM, Compaq, Toshiba or Dell. Those machines have proprietary parts
>> which they either make or have made to their specifications.
>>
>
>Wrong again Bob, Dell used off the shelf components, unless you count the
>labels on the cases.
>

As a long time Dell customer I'm a bit amazed at your comment. Opening any of
the Dell machines that I own shows all kinds of proprietary hardware inside.
Anything from 486/pentium cpu's on daughter cards, to video cards, drive
interfaces, etc. on daughter cards also...

I'm not saying that Dell MAY use off-the-shelf components, but I am saying
they
ceratinly use them in a proprietary way... :')

If you are Dell connected, I'm desparately seeking an ET4000 video card for a
Dell 450DE. You know... that little card that plugs into the header on the
motherboard and not into the isa bus slots?

--

*******************************************************************************

*            Sometimes, the BEST things in life really ARE free...           
*
*       Get a FREE copy of NetRexx 1.151 for your next java project at:      
*
*                                                                            
*
*                      GET IT NOW! WHILE IT'S STILL FREE!                    
*
*                                                                            
*
*                     http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx                    
*
*******************************************************************************


/----------------------------------------\
| From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
|         mcbrides@erols.com             |
\----------------------------------------/

--

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TEAM-NETREXX (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: isxios@yahoo.com                                  15-Nov-99 19:41:07
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:21
Subj: Re: Howard Stern and OS/2

From: isxios@yahoo.com (Isxios)

On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 05:39:22, Mark Schlegel <moschleg@erols.com> 
wrote:

> Marty wrote:
> > 
> > Just curious, but does anyone know if Howard Stern still uses OS/2 at the
> > office?
> > 
> > I remember back when Win95 came out, he was discussing OS/2 on his radio
> > program and several times in subsequent programs I've heard the Warp
startup
> > sound and other OS/2 blips and tweeps in the background.
> > 
> > I was wondering if anyone knew if he still used it.
> > 
> > - Marty
> 
> No, somehow either IBM alienated Howard or else he needed a particular
> program
> that os/2 didn't have.  I just know he quit and went to some
> kind of Windows.
> 
> Mark

If I remember correctly, when Howard was setting up a network that his
group could all log into to work both during work hours and off hours,
this was Lotus Notes BTW, IBM representative suggested he move to 
Windows. He resisted for a while, because I think he really like it, 
but in the end the IBM people moved him and his entire organization to
Windows. He wasn't alienated by IBM, I believe he still uses IBM for 
his computer needs, but they moved him to Windows instead of providing
the solutions he needed in their own platform.

Isxios 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ivaes@hr.nl                                       15-Nov-99 14:12:08
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:21
Subj: (1/2) Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Illya Vaes <ivaes@hr.nl>

Marty wrote:
>>They deliberately set out to get the others out of business and therefore 
>>its employees unemployed.
>>I think MS fully deserves to get now what they dished out in spades.
>So the janitors and window cleaners and software engineers who were just
>doing their respective jobs should now lose their jobs so that "MS" can
>be punished?  These are the people that would be the first to go.

That would be up to the powers that be at MS. The exact same ones that set the
company on the course of screwing everyone in (and outside) the software
industry. Why the punishers or the advocates of "give them what they deserve"
should be held responsible for that and they should get away with *two* things
now is beyond me...

>Cutbacks typically occur at the lowest levels.  Is this fair and just in
>your mind?

No. Life's unfair. That's why society cling so much to laws, usually, because
they want to keep every ounce of honesty and fairness they can get, it's
already preciously little.

>The window cleaner never made anyone lose their job.
>Neither did the grunt software guys who were just doing what their
>managers told them to do.

Then again, others went to work for them because they saw so much dough coming
in and were willing to throw away their principles by working for a company
with such low ethics.
 
>>Rubbish. That was supposed to be the concern of those employees (ie. don't
>>work for a company that does things that might get it punished) and the
>>company itself (ie. it's irresponsible against your own people to do such
>>things).
>Most employees that actually make things happen (ie. write software,
>etc.) have little part in the decision making process.  Why should they
>be punished for the attitudes and actions of their high-level
>management?

The company gets punished and the company (the high-level management) decides
how it's to be handled.
It's also not fair that those high up, the ones using the "cut those fuckers
off", are making the most money while they one that you say do the grunt work
get a lot less. So why not get worked up over that, instead of over the
appliance of US law to not just people but companies (and rich companies) too.
Subjecting everybody, including rich companies, to the same laws is justice.
 
>>You're saying that a drugs cartel shouldn't be taken out of business 
>>because it makes a lot of people lose their income...
>A drug cartel is not an incorporated business.

An inc. is also a matter a definition in a law, which you are arguing
vehemently should not be adhered to if some people might suffer.
Drugs cartel also have cleaners and people doing the grunt work (I'll exclude
hitmen etc. from this), yet you have no problem with them losing their jobs
just because their employer is "not an incorporated business" (which, BTW, is
highly unlikely, since the term "front" hasn't come into being for nothing).
So, if you weren't (alledgedly) part of the "law-abiding" part anyway, it's
okay to apply laws to you and make plenty of people suffer in the process, but
if you were (sort-of) in the "law-abiding" part, it's not okay to apply those
laws that are supposedly abided...
Yeah, that sure makes sense (not).
 
>>How many of Al Capone's people (which must have included a lot of legally 
>>employed people) have lost their jobs when he was nailed? Should he not 
>>have been nailed?

(no answer here, obviously)

>>But as usual, the "government" must be blamed for everything, and maybe
>>some others, but sure don't blame Microsoft itself for the shit they put 
>>the industry and their own people in.
>>Grow up.
>Look... I'm the first guy to come down on Microsoft for their actions
>and the quality of their software, but causing innocent people to suffer
>just doesn't make sense.  What is accomplished in executing wrath upon
>Microsoft?  What we should all be concerned about is how to prevent such
>a thing from happening in the future, *by any company*, not just
>Microsoft.

OK then, then look at the other option, *not* punishing MS.
What is accomplished with that?
They'll have gotten the signal that they can bloody well do as they please,
that's what. And no need to be acting as if they're law-abiding either.

Choosing against a punishment for MS is choosing for it becoming the next US
government. They already have far too much a hold on essential infrastructure
and they will use whatever means they have to increase *their* power, and they
won't even have to mumble things about "innovate" and "consumers" etc.
 
>>>>>Retaliation and vengeance have no place in business
>>>>MS does little else.
>>>>Read the legal papers of the Caldera case, with such great MS exec 
>>>>quotes as "cut those fuckers off". No vengeance and retaliation, you 
>>>>say???
>>>MS makes money. They do what they have been allowed to do in order to 
>>>make money.
>>Ah, so MS can kill all the companies it wants and make all the people
>>unemployed it wants if it makes a buck, but the "government" cannot do
>>anything to uphold the law and/or punish MS for breaking it "because 
>>people's livelihoods depends on their jobs". Yeah, right.
>If the government had a problem with their actions, it should have acted
>immediately.

Aart from the obvious slowness of the judicial system, government and politics
(how long do you guess the "extreme freedom to make a buck" and pro-MS lobby
have held up actions?), there is nothing in the law that says this adagium.
Should a murderer not be tried because the police couldn't find him in a
month. Or if his victim hasn't died yet after having been poisoned with a slow
yet lethal substance?
If eg. 30 years after the (last!) criminal offense, MS still hasn't been tried
and found guilty, then it will have become precluded by the lapse of time.

>The fact that it had to "find a fact" to now start
>applying laws to Microsoft demonstrates that the government had no
>problem with what MS was doing in the past.

Rubbish, and you know it.
Like I said, the government can do no good. If they bud in (too) soon, they
get fried, but when they stay back in the hope (according to right-wingers the
"knowledge" ofcourse) that "the market" will handle it (yeah, monopolies sure
tend to break themselves up...) and finally decide it doesn't, they haven't
stepped in right away and therefore have forfeited their right to interfere.
Yeah, right.

>>>If the government changes their mind and says Microsoft is no longer
>>>allowed to do a given thing, it can't retroactively punish them.
>>>That's in the Constitution of the US.
>>This whole case is about having done things they were *not* allowed to do.
>>And BTW any punishment is retroactive. That's also in your Constitution:
>>you are innocent until you actually do something ellegal (and subsequently
>>are found guilty).
>Right, but if the law didn't exist or apply at the time it was broken,
>one can't be punished for breaking it.

The laws in question are older than Gates and Ballmer together.
 
>>>>The judicial system != government in any modern society (it would be in
>>>>an MS society).
[ SNIP ]
>>>that spoke of the three branches of government in the US, one of which
>>>being the Judicial?
>>In that case, there are at least two meanings for the word "government".
>>One is "the way this country is run and how power is divided", the other 
>>is "the day to day administration and legislature".
>>The latter can break its own rules and be brought to justice for it by 
>>part of the former (of course, it can easily change the law later).
>That's what checks and balances are all about, if I'm reading you
>correctly, but that has little to do with what is occurring here.  This
>also doesn't change the fact that the judicial system shares
>theoretically 1/3 of the governing ability of the US, and is therefore,
>just as much a part of the government as any of the other branches.

You're just trying to redefine the judicial system as part of the government.
If it were that way, there would have been no need to have a government
(Justice Department) attorney present a case before a judge; MS would just
have been convicted.
This judge is an independent person, who looks at the facts and the laws and
determines whether the latter have been broken. If so (which he said), then
the *two* parties (gov and MS) get to argue what "punishment" should be
imposed, and *he* will decide.
 
>>>>>Fair market practices are the court's concern.
>>>>No, they were the concern of the makers of the anti-trust laws.
>>>>The court is only concerned with the (lack of) adherence to those laws.
>>>The court is concerned with doing everything in its power to uphold those
>>>laws.
>>That's what I said, in different words.
>>You however said the court was concerned with "fair market practices", 
>>which you have now changed to "upholding the laws [of anti-trust]".
>>Quite a change...
>Not really, considering that the focus of anti-trust laws is upholding
>fair market practices.

They are related, by accident, but not at all the same.
The courts are only (*only*) concerned with law enforcement. What's in the law
is irrelevant until at least the verdict (if a verdict may be given that
addresses the concerns of the law itself, then it may come into it at that
point).
What is to be put *into* the law is upto the government, your representatives.
 
>>>>Competing fairly from now on (who, MS??? A snowball's chance in hell) is
>>>>completely irrelevant, the past conduct is to be addressed.
>>>If so, then it will have profoundly negative effects with little or no
>>>positive effects. Trying to undo the damage Microsoft has done will be
>>>like trying to un-pee in a pool.
>>... or like trying to un-kill someone. Doesn't stop the US from killing
>>people that have been found guilty of murder.
>>It's the eternal problem of judicial systems; little comes of the
>>punishment itself, except
>>1) punish wrongdoing
>>2) provide some ethical justice to the victims (and there are plenty here)
>>3) deterring others doing the same
>>4) deterring continued illegal conduct
>Yes, but in the case of murder, the only person punished is the
>murderer.

His/her mother/father loses a son/daughter.
His/her brother/sister loses a brother/sister.
His/her wife/husband loses a husband/wife.
His/her child(ren) lose(s a) father/mother.
etc.

>In the case of Microsoft, many people will be punished for
>the transgressions of the few.  This is not just.

Apart from the debatable innocence of a lot of MS employees:
Is it just that the company will get away with *punishing* a lot of companies
and people *without* so much as a trial?
Is it just that they have made a lot of money by riding the wave of crime?
Is it just that there will be no stopping the company after such a no
punishment decision? You *will* suffer from them not being punished and you
*will* moan and groan about it. A company with the morals and ethics of MS is
the closest we are to an Orwellian society by a long shot. They will have a
lot less empathy for those "poor" janitors at some company than I have, after
they have declared themselves government of the US (okay, it won't be so
sudden as a declaration, but it is a real danger of them becoming the de facto
government, and not only in the US).
 
>>Microsoft has shown again and again that they will not stop their conduct
>>willingly until they are forced to; so they effectively said "do it to us 
>>or stuff your laws". The latter is unacceptable for any country with a
>>judicial system worth a bean, so they left no other option than "do it to
>>us".
>>People losing their jobs should complain to Gates, Ballmer, Silverberg,
>>Maples, etc.
>"Do it to us" should mean "stop this from happening again," not "hurt
>us".  They can be handcuffed without being handcuffed and beaten.

"Stop us or stuff your laws"????? That's what you're saying.
*They* decide what they do. Just because the opportunity is there, doesn't
mean you're forced to do something. *They* are in the position of stopping
"this" from happening again, and they keep showing that they *don't want to
stop it*. That is exactly what is saying "nail us or sod off".
Too bad the government just cannot sod off.
They only have themselves to blame. I am sorry for all those at MS that must
suffer the consequences innocently (a lot less than you're implying, I'm
sure), but if they (really) wanted to prevent that (and not just roll in dough
and feel triumphant because they squashed another upstart with real
innovation), they should have organised a mutiny.
 
>>Not punishing them now gives them the go-ahead on everything they feel is
>>desirable and literally places them above the law. That would only be the
>>start of "the damage MS has done"...
>Punishing them doesn't prevent them from doing their damage again,
>unless the punishment is so severe as to shut them down altogether.
>Preventing them from holding monopoly power must be the focus of the
>court.

Punishing them may mean being broken up in such a manner that competition is
restored, or otherwise all participants have equal chances.
OTOH, they might also be forced to pay millions (just a fraction of what they
extorted from the biz) which may eg. be used to finance upstarts of keep
suffering competitors in business (and *don't complain about them getting
money, because *they too* have innocent janitors that are the first to go when
monopolist bully MS, as they themselves said, "smile while we pull the
trigger"; ah, poor MS).
 
>>If you don't want MS to be punished after having been found guilty, you
>>just don't want a judicial system. It's that simple.
>Perhaps I just have more sympathy for working class folks. 

I have too. There's a lot more working class folks at non-MS companies than at
MS, and they have a lot tougher job (or a lot less jobs!) with un unpunished
MS.
You're reasoning "I don't want to spend this dime" even though spending it
will bring you ten bucks.

>If it were my job on the line, this angry mob style of justice would prompt 
>me to countersue the government.

Selfcentered. We're talking on a society-wide scale here. Should all of
society (and not just US!) suffer because you happened to have taken a job
"innocently" at a company that "pulls the trigger" on other companies "while
smiling"?
Just countersue the government and prove me right again. It's always the

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ivaes@hr.nl                                       15-Nov-99 14:12:08
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:21
Subj: (2/2) Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

damned government. "I just wished there were anarchy" (until it meant you not
getting any roads built for you, or no well-fare when you've been made
redundant, or the "russkis" had come barging into the door because there
wasn't a government to stop them).

There are rules in a society, for better *and* for worse. What's better for an
individual is often worse for the rest.
Live with it or go live on Mars.

-- 
Illya Vaes   (ivaes@hr.nl)        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385           Not speaking for anyone but myself

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jhimmel@i-2000.com                                15-Nov-99 22:32:11
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:23
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: jhimmel@i-2000.com (James Himmelman)

Bob, he was hoping not to see "a good reason" - singular. Now you've 
done it. Now he's going to drive himself crazy for an hour trying to 
refute all 16 reasons. You should have had pitty on the man.

On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:07:37, Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> 
wrote:
> On <zozo82v77g.53.uno@sage.40th.com>, on 11/15/99 at 06:41 AM,
>    uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) said:
> 
> > Who here, if they were just starting today, would install OS2 as the
> > sole (99% use) OS?  If you have to guts to admit it, at least say why
> > you'd use OS2 (avoid cliches if possible) instead of say, NT4.  I doubt
> > more than a couple will dare.  I know none will have a good reason. 
> > Simple challenge.
> 
> More than 45% of our client base uses OS/2. We are selling new licenses
> every day. We do it because we, and our clients, agree that:
> 
> 1. OS/2 is far more stable than Windows 9x, NT, or 3.11.
> 
> 2. OS/2 gives superior performance on typical machines.
> 
> 3. OS/2 provides much superior networking than Windows 9x and even NT.
> 
> 4. OS/2 is much better supported by its publisher than Windows, -any
> flavor.]
> 
> 5. OS/2 can be administered and updated by the network supervisor much
> more easily than Windows running under Novell.
> 
> 6. OS/2 runs in less memory and on slower machines far faster than Windows
> 9x and on machines on which Windows 98 or NT will no even load due to
> insufficient resources.
> 
> 7. Our experience is that any DOS program using certain sorting and data
> retrieval routines such as Btrieve will not run on WFG or 9x but do run in
> a WinOS2 environment.
> 
> 8. OS/2 code is and has been very stable for nearly 7 years. The
> occasional fixpack need only be applied if the system is experiencing a
> problem addressed by the fixpack.
> 
> 9. Unlike Windows, when employees access the web, OS/2 does not try to
> update itself as Windows 9x and IE do. These automatic updates, if
> interrupted, frequently cause the necessity to completely reformat and
> restore the workstation. They have also caused software on the machine to
> fail to function properly, again requiring a reinstallation of Windows and
> the software.
> 
> 10. The lack of support for popular games in OS/2 is seen as an advantage
> by corporate managers. Unlike Windows machines, they do not find it
> necessary to disable or remove floppy and CD Rom drives to protect the
> workstation and/or network from employees installing software without
> permission.
> 
> 11. The danger of infection with virii is far, far lower with OS/2 than
> Windows 9x.
> 
> 12. Many of our clients have been Lotus 1-2-3 users since the days of the
> PC and XT. The availability of native OS/2 software which supports 1-2-3,
> WordPro (f/k/a AmiPro), and Organizer makes constant updates to their
> productivity software unnecessary.
> 
> 13. While OS/2 doesn't have support for some of the newer, cheap, low end
> hardware designed only for a Windows environment, the vast majority of our
> clients' workstations do not have sound cards nor does management want
> them. However, support for higher end printers, scanners, etc. is
> outstanding and frequently native to OS/2 unlike low end printers, etc.
> which require the user or MIS department to install drivers for standalone
> peripherals.
> 
> 14. Approximately 35% of our clients are users of Lotus Notes. Notes runs
> best in an OS/2 environment, not unexpected since Notes is an IBM product.
> In parallel testing, Domino Server running under Warp Connect was far
> faster than under Novell and Windows 9x. The Windows server had to be
> rebooted on an average of 6 times per week. The OS/2 server didn't require
> a single reboot during the 4 month long test. Both machines were
> identical, HP machines with identical drives, adapters, etc.  A reboot or
> two may not seem like much to someone not responsible for a network with
> 80 or more users, but in that environment, a 10 minute outage of the
> server makes for a lot of added cost since the workers do nothing until
> the network comes back up. 800 idle minutes equates to 13.67 hours at an
> average wage/benefit/overhead cost exceeding $30 per employee and is
> equivalent to $400 or more a day. Multiply that by 290 working days and it
> is real money.
> 
> 15. OS/2 for most users with at least 96 megs of memory doesn't ever use a
> swapfile. On every one of our machines on the office network, the date and
> time of the swapfile is the date and time of the last reboot. On the same
> machines, Windows is constantly writing to and reading from the swapfile.
> My personal machine on which I am composing this article, has been running
> 10 days, 9 hours and 36 minutes since the last reboot. My swapper.dat file
> remains at the 8 megs Warp established during the boot. Currently there
> are 31 processes running with 15 active at this very moment. I still have
> 69 megabytes of available free RAM.
> 
> Compare that to what Windows needs and USES on the same hardware with
> nothing but the desktop active. Looking at the C:\windows subdirectory, I
> see that the last time Windows was booted which was only for the purpose
> of testing new dialer settings, it wrote at win386.swp file of over 58
> megabytes. Moreover, it USED it! What a total waste on a machine with 128
> megabytes of high speed memory.
> 
> 16. Windows needs far more diskspace than Warp for the program files. In
> fact, if the OEM installs Windows 9x on a new machine, one gets some 300
> megs of cab files taking up space for no good reason. OS/2 can easily be
> installed on a machine with a 300 meg harddisk and run SmartSuite, 
> 
> We run a Domino Server for some of our clients to replicate to several
> times a day. It is running on a Pentium 150 with 64 megs of ram. It has
> now been running since we lost power for several hours back in August. A
> faster machine is not needed since it is still faster than the network or
> v.90 modems. It will be shut down late next month, on Christmas day, to
> install some larger disks since it is now more than 80% of capacity. I
> doubt it will be shut down again until the next power outage longer than 2
> hours. It ran for 340 days before the August incident. No Windows NT, 9x,
> or DOS/WFWG machine ever made it through a week without a reboot.
> Workstations upgraded to Win9x in several clients' offices required
> numerous reboots every day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
> MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
> Aut Pax Aut Bellum
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
> 

[[[ James Himmelman - jhimmel@i-2000.com ]]]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           15-Nov-99 17:12:03
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:23
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <38324be5.2062989@news.borg.com>, on 11/15/99 at 06:09 PM,
   jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt) said:

> And yet, you need some twenty-something year old "tech" at Dell to put
> together computers for your "clients".

> Yep, we're believing every word of this. We sure are.

No, I don't and do not do that for smaller accounts who are willing to
accept hardware we provide. However, for the major clients and contract
bids, we must use name brands since the bid specifications call for them.
I have explained this in some detail.

New Jersey has long had a requirement that all public bodies, even local
zoning boards, etc. buy only from the lowest qualified bidder. Long time
political cronies in many places manipulated the system to write bids that
virtually only one manufacturer can meet. This was challenged in Court and
changes were mandated. However, the Supreme Court of NJ did allow the
creditworthiness test which is used by the salesmen for IBM, Compaq, etc.
to rig the bidding to prevent lower cost clones from being bought.




--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jhimmel@i-2000.com                                15-Nov-99 22:23:14
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:23
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: jhimmel@i-2000.com (James Himmelman)

On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 05:29:51, uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) wrote:

> 
> James Himmelman? (jhimmel@i-2000.com?) wrote (Mon, 15 Nov 1999 03:32:07
GMT):
> >trying to convince me that it is a bad choice.
> 
> So you say.  And yes, I would say it's a bad choice for anyone
> starting out.  For those that have many, many years invested in
> it, no, I wouldn't give advice one way or the other unless I knew
> more about their needs.  In your case, if OS2 does all that you
> need, why be afraid of what I have to say?

Afraid??? I read all your replies to me. Fear never even crossed my 
mind.

> Are you scared?

There you go again. Where in the world did you come up with that idea?
Are you scared of MY posts?

> What of?

I have no idea. You tell me.

> That somehow everyone will dump OS2 just because I say it's
> (usually) the smart thing to do?  I don't have to -- they do it
> every day, by themselves, just like you will... (to be continued).

And people dump Windows every day too, just like you will someday. So 
what?

[[[ James Himmelman - jhimmel@i-2000.com ]]]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mwvaugh-spamblows@life.uiuc.edu                   15-Nov-99 16:56:23
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:23
Subj: Re: The Microsnot PR Quiz

From: mwvaugh-spamblows@life.uiuc.edu (M.Vaughn)

Astroturfer

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Somewhat but not too much.. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             15-Nov-99 14:57:14
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:23
Subj: Re: ODIN32 Status Report on Warpcast

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>


Jack Troughton wrote:
> 
> ODIN32 seems to be making real progress:
> 
> http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4436.html
> 
> Here is the relevant piece from it....
> 
> "I downloaded release 19991112 of Odin and had success converting
> Acrobat Distiller 3.02!
> 
> I typed 'PE ACRODIST' and the Distiller window showed up. I loaded a
> Postscript file and converted it to PDF in OS/2!"
> 
> This seems to be showing some very real promise here...


Ssssshhhh!  Let's just keep this to ourselves, OK?



> 
> Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
> http://jakesplace.dhs.org
> jack.troughton at videotron.ca
> jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
> Montral PQ Canada

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kahnt@adan.kingston.net                           15-Nov-99 16:13:11
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:23
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: "Mark L. Kahnt" <kahnt@adan.kingston.net>

Erik Schild wrote:
> 
> Jack Troughton wrote:
> 
> > Stan... you're from Israel, so you probably don't really know what
> > "government" means in British Columbia, Canada.  To give you an idea;
> > the most recent scandal (but not the first, nor the nastiest)
> > involving a sitting premier is an instructive little spectacle known
> > in the press here as "Bingogate".  I invite you to imagine the sordid
> > details.
> 
> That's old news.  We've had plenty of scandals since then.
> In fact some people are calling the capital of Victoria 'Trough-ton'.
> 
> > To which I might add that BC is a very beautiful place, and everyone
> > I've met from out there have been very nice people.  I lived there for
> > a while, but I was very young, and don't really know the place.  My
> > sister lived there for seven years, and she likes the place.  However,
> > politics has a flavour all its own in BC.  The "father" of BC was a
> > premier popularly known as "Wacky" Bennet.  I don't know if he's the
> > first... maybe the guy from bc.politics could enlighten us?
> 
> If he's the first what?  Hope your sister's doin' o.k.
> 
> Readers please note that I'm responding to off-topic crossposting, not
> originating it!
> 
> E.Schild
> eschild@uniserve.com

Don't forget Amour de Cosmos (sp?) - the first BC Premier (iirc) when BC
entered Confederation. W.A.C. (Wacky) Bennett and Vander Zalm were just
later examples.
-- 

============================================================
To respond via e-mail - remove the "go-away-spammers"
portion of the Reply to: value.

Mark L. Kahnt, C.P. Box 1263, Kingston, Ontario   K7L 4Y8
Voix:        (613) 531-8767   Cellulaire: (613) 539-0935
Telecopieur: (613) 531-8684   Email: kahnt@adan.kingston.net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: M.L. Kahnt New Markets Consulting (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  15-Nov-99 16:43:22
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:23
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

This is hilarious, Jeff!  The guy can't even spell the name of the city he
"celebrated" his birthday in!  Gadzooks, this guy is like Tholen without the
[ahem] "charm."

Maybe he'll get a clue and look it up.  Maybe he won't.  In any event, it
supports the interpretation that his "credentials" are, um, fantasy.

- Joe

Jeff Glatt <jglatt@spamgone-borg.com> wrote in message
news:38324be5.2062989@news.borg.com...
> >Boob Germer
> >I celebrated my 14th birthday in Binghampton at IBM school for the 604
> >electronic calculator/521 reader punch. By the time I entered high
school,
> >I could wire virtually every IBM breadboard machine they rented at the
> >time since we had all but a couple of them.
>
> And yet, you need some twenty-something year old "tech" at Dell to put
> together computers for your "clients".
>
> Yep, we're believing every word of this. We sure are.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org                      15-Nov-99 13:37:03
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:23
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org>

Jerry McBride <mcbrides@erols.com> wrote in message
news:GEEM48D5wCwN090yn@erols.com...
> In article <80o9l2$3j5$3@news.campuscwix.net>,
> "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote:
> >
> >Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote in message
> >news:382f97c3$1$obot$mr2ice@news.pics.com...
> >> On <TVUvOO0GyJdvFRsNswIaTa+zWBcU@4ax.com>, on 11/14/99 at 09:09 PM,
> >>    Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> said:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Hmmm, but don't these big OEMs sell preassembled parts with their big
> >> > names stamped on it?
> >>
> >> Not IBM, Compaq, Toshiba or Dell. Those machines have proprietary parts
> >> which they either make or have made to their specifications.
> >>
> >
> >Wrong again Bob, Dell used off the shelf components, unless you count the
> >labels on the cases.
> >
>
> As a long time Dell customer I'm a bit amazed at your comment. Opening any
of
> the Dell machines that I own shows all kinds of proprietary hardware
inside.
> Anything from 486/pentium cpu's on daughter cards, to video cards, drive
> interfaces, etc. on daughter cards also...
>
> I'm not saying that Dell MAY use off-the-shelf components, but I am saying
they
> ceratinly use them in a proprietary way... :')
>
> If you are Dell connected, I'm desparately seeking an ET4000 video card
for a
> Dell 450DE. You know... that little card that plugs into the header on the
> motherboard and not into the isa bus slots?

Call Compaq they used that on early DeskPro models.

>
> --
>
>
****************************************************************************
***
> *            Sometimes, the BEST things in life really ARE free...
*
> *       Get a FREE copy of NetRexx 1.151 for your next java project at:
*
> *
*
> *                      GET IT NOW! WHILE IT'S STILL FREE!
*
> *
*
> *                     http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx
*
>
****************************************************************************
***
>
> /----------------------------------------\
> | From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
> |         mcbrides@erols.com             |
> \----------------------------------------/
>
> --
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CampusCWIX (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jack.troughton@nospam.videotron.ca                15-Nov-99 21:40:23
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:23
Subj: ODIN32 Status Report on Warpcast

From: jack.troughton@nospam.videotron.ca (Jack Troughton)

ODIN32 seems to be making real progress:

http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4436.html

Here is the relevant piece from it....

"I downloaded release 19991112 of Odin and had success converting
Acrobat Distiller 3.02!

I typed 'PE ACRODIST' and the Distiller window showed up. I loaded a
Postscript file and converted it to PDF in OS/2!"

This seems to be showing some very real promise here...

Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
http://jakesplace.dhs.org
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
Montral PQ Canada

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.c...               15-Nov-99 22:06:06
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:23
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

Message sender: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk

From: David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk>

On 12 Nov 1999 18:50:38 GMT, TheCentralScrutinizer.171@pobox.com ()
wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:28:24 +0000, David Sutherland
><sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk> wrote: 
>>>>
>>>>The replacement for NT 4.0 and it is due in Feb 2000. Cost to you...$149
>>>>and several hours of non stop installation.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And will need 256M and a 700mhz processor just to avoid being a complete
>>>dog. 
>>
>>Amazing then that I installed the beta (RC1) on a PII266 with 128MB
>>and was on the internet in around an hour and a half.
>>
>>Someone doesn't know what they are talking about....
>>
>
>WTF does download speed have to do with it's performance?
>

Where did I mention *anything* about download speeds in the above?   I
had a fully installed and networked Win2000 installation in around an
hour and a half on a *much* lower spec'd amchine than you claimed
possible.   Read it again until you get it.

>I was merely following trend:
>
>dos->win3.0->win3.1->win4.x->winnt->??
>
>Each time has required a fourfold processor and memory improvement.

You "followed a trend"?  In other words you made up a story and
pretended it was fact.  Shame on you.   I thought FUD was a bad thing,
or is it okay to make up facts so long as you like them?

Fact:  It doesn't take "several hours of non stop installation" to get
Win2000 on your machine.

Fact:  It runs comfortably on a PII266 with 128MB RAM, which is a damn
sight less than "256M and a 700mhz (sic) processor"

Fact:  Your claims were pure FUD.


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: (Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.c...               15-Nov-99 22:12:01
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:23
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

Message sender: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk

From: David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk>

On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 00:11:22 -0500, David H. McCoy
<forgitaboutit@fake.com> wrote:

>In article <slrn82ol4v.cpa.TheCentralScrutinizer.171@edison.chisp.net>, 
>TheCentralScrutinizer.171@pobox.com says...
>>On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 21:25:59 -0500, David H. McCoy
>><forgitaboutit@fake.com> wrote: 
>>
>>>In article <slrn82m5sp.pn2.TheCentralScrutinizer.171@edison.chisp.net>, 
>>>TheCentralScrutinizer.171@pobox.com says...
>>>>I'm leaving OS/2 but mostly because I want the reliability of unix.
>>>>
>>>>I wouldn't even consider an MS product except on a separate computer w/
>>>>VNC to run its desktop remotely.  I want the latest'n'greatest photo
>>>>printing so I'll put that on a windoze95 box running on a junk $150
>>>>pentium. 
>>>>
>>>>My considerations are linux and solaris.  You want the latest'n'greatest
>>>>gnu products?  You won't find them on NT.  You'll find them on unix
>>>>machines. 
>>>>
>>>>NT is a pig and I don't want to spend $600 in mother board and CPU
>>>>upgrades to get the performance of a $150 machine nor do I want to pay its
>>>>exorbatant price. 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Why do you guys insist on lying to try to prove a point. I purchased a
slot1 
>>>Abit BH6 in 1998 for $130. A celeron 366 overclocked at 500 mhz cost $98. 
>>>
>>>If you paid $600 for any motherboard, you are a complete idiot.
>>
>>I said $600 for a "MOTHERBOARD AND CPU"  Get a dictionary.  Look up
>>the word 'and'.  About $450 of that is for the CPU.
>>
>>
>
>Indeed.  And AS I SAID, an MB can be had for $130 and a CPU for $98 which is 
>FAR less than your $450 price tag.
>
>If you paid $600 for a "MOTHERBOARD AND CPU", unless it was amongst the
fastest 
>Athlon or Celeron on the market, you are an idiot.
>
>But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt,TheCentralScrutinizer. Which 
>motherboard? Which CPU?

This Screwtinizer guy also claims that Win2000 won't run on anything
less than a 700mhz (sic) 256MB box, despite the fact that thousands of
people are already doing it - he speaks from pure ignorance.



Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: (Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           15-Nov-99 17:11:03
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:23
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <3KcvOMPOEPq1eeORav0FX3CJHRrw@4ax.com>, on 11/15/99 at 01:30 AM,
   Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> said:


> Tsk. Tsk.

> Yes, it is a personal attack. Just up your street BTW

Typical conduct of an Arab terrorist. You can't win a rational argument so
you attempt to blow others up.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           15-Nov-99 17:08:08
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:23
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <80o9l3$3j5$4@news.campuscwix.net>, on 11/14/99 at 10:27 PM,
   "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> said:


> Flying anywhere in January? I guess we should have used the Chinese
> solution to Y2K and air traffic, they made a law that requires the
> managers and executives to be flying when the date rolls over.  A good
> incentive program is hard to beat.

Hadn't heard that. I LOVE it. In our squadron in the South Pacific in
1967, we had two "trainer" versions of our fighter. There was real
competition to fly those 2 since we could designate a member of the
maintenance crew to fly in the second seat on most missions. The
maintenance on those two birds was far superior to that on the single
seaters.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           15-Nov-99 16:07:18
  To: All                                               15-Nov-99 20:08:23
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <zozo82v77g.53.uno@sage.40th.com>, on 11/15/99 at 06:41 AM,
   uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) said:

> Who here, if they were just starting today, would install OS2 as the
> sole (99% use) OS?  If you have to guts to admit it, at least say why
> you'd use OS2 (avoid cliches if possible) instead of say, NT4.  I doubt
> more than a couple will dare.  I know none will have a good reason. 
> Simple challenge.

More than 45% of our client base uses OS/2. We are selling new licenses
every day. We do it because we, and our clients, agree that:

1. OS/2 is far more stable than Windows 9x, NT, or 3.11.

2. OS/2 gives superior performance on typical machines.

3. OS/2 provides much superior networking than Windows 9x and even NT.

4. OS/2 is much better supported by its publisher than Windows, -any
flavor.]

5. OS/2 can be administered and updated by the network supervisor much
more easily than Windows running under Novell.

6. OS/2 runs in less memory and on slower machines far faster than Windows
9x and on machines on which Windows 98 or NT will no even load due to
insufficient resources.

7. Our experience is that any DOS program using certain sorting and data
retrieval routines such as Btrieve will not run on WFG or 9x but do run in
a WinOS2 environment.

8. OS/2 code is and has been very stable for nearly 7 years. The
occasional fixpack need only be applied if the system is experiencing a
problem addressed by the fixpack.

9. Unlike Windows, when employees access the web, OS/2 does not try to
update itself as Windows 9x and IE do. These automatic updates, if
interrupted, frequently cause the necessity to completely reformat and
restore the workstation. They have also caused software on the machine to
fail to function properly, again requiring a reinstallation of Windows and
the software.

10. The lack of support for popular games in OS/2 is seen as an advantage
by corporate managers. Unlike Windows machines, they do not find it
necessary to disable or remove floppy and CD Rom drives to protect the
workstation and/or network from employees installing software without
permission.

11. The danger of infection with virii is far, far lower with OS/2 than
Windows 9x.

12. Many of our clients have been Lotus 1-2-3 users since the days of the
PC and XT. The availability of native OS/2 software which supports 1-2-3,
WordPro (f/k/a AmiPro), and Organizer makes constant updates to their
productivity software unnecessary.

13. While OS/2 doesn't have support for some of the newer, cheap, low end
hardware designed only for a Windows environment, the vast majority of our
clients' workstations do not have sound cards nor does management want
them. However, support for higher end printers, scanners, etc. is
outstanding and frequently native to OS/2 unlike low end printers, etc.
which require the user or MIS department to install drivers for standalone
peripherals.

14. Approximately 35% of our clients are users of Lotus Notes. Notes runs
best in an OS/2 environment, not unexpected since Notes is an IBM product.
In parallel testing, Domino Server running under Warp Connect was far
faster than under Novell and Windows 9x. The Windows server had to be
rebooted on an average of 6 times per week. The OS/2 server didn't require
a single reboot during the 4 month long test. Both machines were
identical, HP machines with identical drives, adapters, etc.  A reboot or
two may not seem like much to someone not responsible for a network with
80 or more users, but in that environment, a 10 minute outage of the
server makes for a lot of added cost since the workers do nothing until
the network comes back up. 800 idle minutes equates to 13.67 hours at an
average wage/benefit/overhead cost exceeding $30 per employee and is
equivalent to $400 or more a day. Multiply that by 290 working days and it
is real money.

15. OS/2 for most users with at least 96 megs of memory doesn't ever use a
swapfile. On every one of our machines on the office network, the date and
time of the swapfile is the date and time of the last reboot. On the same
machines, Windows is constantly writing to and reading from the swapfile.
My personal machine on which I am composing this article, has been running
10 days, 9 hours and 36 minutes since the last reboot. My swapper.dat file
remains at the 8 megs Warp established during the boot. Currently there
are 31 processes running with 15 active at this very moment. I still have
69 megabytes of available free RAM.

Compare that to what Windows needs and USES on the same hardware with
nothing but the desktop active. Looking at the C:\windows subdirectory, I
see that the last time Windows was booted which was only for the purpose
of testing new dialer settings, it wrote at win386.swp file of over 58
megabytes. Moreover, it USED it! What a total waste on a machine with 128
megabytes of high speed memory.

16. Windows needs far more diskspace than Warp for the program files. In
fact, if the OEM installs Windows 9x on a new machine, one gets some 300
megs of cab files taking up space for no good reason. OS/2 can easily be
installed on a machine with a 300 meg harddisk and run SmartSuite, 

We run a Domino Server for some of our clients to replicate to several
times a day. It is running on a Pentium 150 with 64 megs of ram. It has
now been running since we lost power for several hours back in August. A
faster machine is not needed since it is still faster than the network or
v.90 modems. It will be shut down late next month, on Christmas day, to
install some larger disks since it is now more than 80% of capacity. I
doubt it will be shut down again until the next power outage longer than 2
hours. It ran for 340 days before the August incident. No Windows NT, 9x,
or DOS/WFWG machine ever made it through a week without a reboot.
Workstations upgraded to Win9x in several clients' offices required
numerous reboots every day.




--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         15-Nov-99 23:33:05
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>> I've told you several times now that the above statement does not
>> concern the JDK sentence,

> Wrong.

On the contrary, I have told you that several times now.  Still suffering
from reading comprehension problems, Lucien?

> this statement directly concerns the JDK sentence,

Incorrect, given that the JDK sentence involves the presence of
additional information.

> given that it contains a phrase involving the verb 'implements'.

There's more to the sentence than just that phrase, Lucien.

> See below.

See my response below.

>> and I've also told you why, namely because
>> the JDK sentence involves the presence of other information.

> Irrelevant,

On the contrary, it's quite relevant, because it demonstrates how the
statement does not concern the JDK sentence.

> as you demonstrate in your statement.

My statement does not demonstrate any irrelevance of my response to
your remark, Lucien.

> Let's reread it once again very carefully

Unnecessary, Lucien.  Rather, it's necessary for you to reread my
response once again very carefully.  If you still haven't figured
it out, try the two simple tests that you continue to ignore.

> (I've reproduced it below) -

I've reproduced the two simple tests below, given that you keep
deleting them in a feeble attempt to ignore the evidence for why
you're wrong.

> focus closely on the emphasized portion,

Unnecesssary, Lucien.  Rather, it's necessary for you to focus
closely on the difference between presence and absence of additional
information.

> noting what it says about the conditions for the appearance of the
> 'some' or 'all' alternation WRT any "other information":

You should note that the JDK sentence provides the "other information",
Lucien.

> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, ---->>>[[[[in the [[[absence]]] of any other
> information."]]]]<<<----

In the absence of clouds, you would not expect it to rain.  Now, how
does such a statement apply to the weather here in Hawaii, Lucien?
Hint:  we have the presence of clouds.

> According to your statement, under what conditions does "implements"
> "....allow for either 'some' or 'all' functionality..."?

Conditions that don't apply to the JDK sentence, Lucien.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.                                              
]                                                                    
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.                                 
]                                                                    
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day? 
]                                                                    
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore 
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the  
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to 
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.   
]                                                                    
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.                                    

Test grade:  F.

Here's another little test for you, Lucien:

] #3:  It did rain today.
] 
] #4:  It didn't rain today.
] 
] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
] 
] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
] to be answered unambigiously.
] 
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".   
Or are you really that idiotic?                                    

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: uno@40th.com                                      16-Nov-99 00:09:03
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com)

Bob Germer? (bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com?) wrote (Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:07:37
-0500):
>1. OS/2 is far more stable than Windows ... NT,...

I say not.

>2. OS/2 gives superior performance on typical machines.

I say not.

>3. OS/2 provides much superior networking than Windows 9x and even NT.

I say not (at least, not to samba or NT machines).

>4. OS/2 is much better supported by its publisher than Windows, -any

Hm.  Who's got your head in a vice, Bob?

>5. OS/2 can be administered and updated by the network supervisor much
>more easily than Windows running under Novell.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

>6. OS/2 runs in less memory and on slower machines far faster than Windows
>9x and on machines on which Windows 98 or NT will no even load due to
>insufficient resources.

If that is the case, I wouldn't want to use that
machine.  But, since we're talking about, at most,
4 MB, who really cares.  Sure, a small fraction of
the already small fraction (0.025%).

>7. Our experience is that any DOS program using certain sorting and data
>retrieval routines such as Btrieve will not run on WFG or 9x but do run in
>a WinOS2 environment.

Btrieve DOS was a TSR.  If you want to use a TSR to
manage any sort of data storage, that's your fault.

>8. OS/2 code is and has been very stable for nearly 7 years. The

I'm sure most of it is.  That really has to be taken for
granted (after 7 years, anyway).  But a hung up PM app
(SIQ) can make even a stable kernel look pretty weak.

>9. Unlike Windows, when employees access the web, OS/2 does not try to...
>fail to function properly, again requiring a reinstallation of Windows and

Never has happened here (auto update).  I see menu
items for that, but nothing that pops up like, say,
the Warp 4 elephant nonsense.

>10. The lack of support for popular games in OS/2 is seen as an advantage
>by corporate managers. Unlike Windows machines, they do not find it

It does DOS games just fine (at least the could I use).
NT won't run the DOS games (Doom, Falcon 3) at all.
NT does run Quake, and FS.  But, if that's a problem,
sounds like there's a deeper problem.

>11. The danger of infection with virii is far, far lower with OS/2 than
>Windows 9x.

It only takes one.  Besides, there just isn't much
being reported about OS2 -- that doesn't mean there
aren't a fair share of viruses out there (or just
plain trojans on a popular download site, say).

>12. Many of our clients have been Lotus 1-2-3 users since the days of the

What else are they going to use?

>13...clients' workstations do not have sound cards nor does management want

Ouch!

>them. However, support for higher end printers, scanners, etc. is

But, yes, a printer is a printer.  Lexmark will probably be
making OS2 drivers until the cows come home (by the way,
it's almost dusk, and I can see the cows coming over the
hill).

>14. Approximately 35% of our clients are users of Lotus Notes. Notes runs

35% of what number?

>faster than under Novell and Windows 9x. The Windows server had to be
>rebooted on an average of 6 times per week. The OS/2 server didn't require
>a single reboot during the 4 month long test. Both machines were

That's a nice anecdote, but not quite worth of say:

 http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/openbench1.html

>15. OS/2 for most users with at least 96 megs of memory doesn't ever use a
>swapfile. On every one of our machines on the office network, the date and

True.  I never have a swap file until I use Navigator.
Some sites, the useful ones it seems, cause Nav to lose
memory (and I mean lose it in the system somewhere) and
the swap file grows in no time (a few minutes). 'Course,
some apps, like VAC, only work if it can claim the back
forty of your swap file.

>time of the swapfile is the date and time of the last reboot. On the same
>machines, Windows is constantly writing to and reading from the swapfile.

Go figure.  Thing is, while I may have 10 MB free on my
OS2 machine (out of 128), on NT I have 80 MB free (right
now I have 55 MB free and another 30MB in file cache).
I think NT just moves stuff out to the pagefile when it
hasn't been used in X time.  OS2 leaves it in memory,
swapping out only if it needs the memory.  Or, not.

>My personal machine on which I am composing this article, has been running
>10 days, 9 hours and 36 minutes since the last reboot. My swapper.dat file
>remains at the 8 megs Warp established during the boot. Currently there

Well, you can't just go by swap size.  It's possible
that none of it has ever been used.  You can find out
exactly how many pages are in use by looking at a data
structure off the SAS.  That's the only way to really
know.

>are 31 processes running with 15 active at this very moment. I still have
>69 megabytes of available free RAM.

I've got 2939 handles, 206 threads, and 40 processes
right now (not much, really).  Whoops!.  I'm up to 61 MB
available, and 24 MB cache now.

>16. Windows needs far more diskspace than Warp for the program files. In

Because EXEs aren't normally packed (exe:2) like OS2
apps/dlls are.  They can be packed by third-party tools.
Sure, I can see having compressed code files as useful.
They are compressed in WinCE.  File sizes there are
truly small.

>fact, if the OEM installs Windows 9x on a new machine, one gets some 300
>megs of cab files taking up space for no good reason. OS/2 can easily be
>installed on a machine with a 300 meg harddisk and run SmartSuite,

I have an installed NT4 SP5 on a 250 MB partition.
It's got 90 MB free.

>install some larger disks since it is now more than 80% of capacity. I
>doubt it will be shut down again until the next power outage longer than 2
>hours. It ran for 340 days before the August incident. No Windows NT, 9x,
>or DOS/WFWG machine ever made it through a week without a reboot.

Easy to say, Bob, but only for your experience.  In
my experience, NT4 SP3 (what I usually use, but also
the SP5 and NT Server SP3) has failed once due to
printing from Adobe Reader 3.0 (probably an interaction
with the lexmark driver).  It prints fine in Acrobat 4.0.
Other than that, which happened 30 Sep, no other faults
on this machine (since May99).


Anyway, you're entrenched too much in OS2 to be
an unbiased participant in the challenge. Bob.
The challenge is, who, if they started out today,
would install OS2 instead of some other OS.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: uno@40th.com                                      16-Nov-99 00:11:21
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com)

James Himmelman? (jhimmel@i-2000.com?) wrote (Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:23:29 GMT):
>Are you scared of MY posts?

I don't think I even read them, or at least I don't
remember them.  But thanks for remembering mine --
it's nice to know you care.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            15-Nov-99 20:20:22
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: Re: Howard Stern and OS/2

From: David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com>

In article <382F7CB5.6B4A2FFD@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
>Just curious, but does anyone know if Howard Stern still uses OS/2 at the
>office?
>
>I remember back when Win95 came out, he was discussing OS/2 on his radio
>program and several times in subsequent programs I've heard the Warp startup
>sound and other OS/2 blips and tweeps in the background.
>
>I was wondering if anyone knew if he still used it.
>
>- Marty
>

Sorry, but Howard Stern switched to Windows 95 a couple of years ago. Even he 
knows...

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: malstrom@lessing.oit.umass.edu                    15-Nov-99 20:34:04
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: Re: Howard Stern and OS/2

From: Jason <malstrom@lessing.oit.umass.edu>

David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com> wrote:
: In article <382F7CB5.6B4A2FFD@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
:>Just curious, but does anyone know if Howard Stern still uses OS/2 at the
:>office?
:>
:>I remember back when Win95 came out, he was discussing OS/2 on his radio
:>program and several times in subsequent programs I've heard the Warp startup
:>sound and other OS/2 blips and tweeps in the background.
:>
:>I was wondering if anyone knew if he still used it.
:>
:>- Marty
:>

: Sorry, but Howard Stern switched to Windows 95 a couple of years ago. Even
he 
: knows...

Actually, it was less of knowledge, but rather more IBM telling him not 
to use it and go to Windows 95 instead.

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: malstrom@lessing.oit.umass.edu                    15-Nov-99 20:44:16
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: Re: How much longer can you use this thing?

From: Jason <malstrom@lessing.oit.umass.edu>

Mac <none@because.i.hate.spam.org> wrote:
: What about Linux or Mac?

Why?

: Face it, OS/2 is dead. I did the linux thing for several months at home.

Funny, it seems to be working over here

: I don't need unix on my home network.

That's your own problem.

: The other choices are BEOS, WinBlows or Mac.

For the most part.

: I had a VERY bad experience where a supervisor pretty much said "We will
: be going to OS/2". He got fired shortly thereafter.

Ask me if I care.

: I've settled on using a Mac G4. Now I don't have to deal with either IBM
: or Microsoft or some unkown ententiny called Linux.

Microsoft keeps apple on a pretty short leash.  Have fun with your toy.

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               15-Nov-99 21:15:17
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: (1/2) Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Illya Vaes wrote:
> 
> Marty wrote:
> >>They deliberately set out to get the others out of business and therefore
> >>its employees unemployed.
> >>I think MS fully deserves to get now what they dished out in spades.
> >So the janitors and window cleaners and software engineers who were just
> >doing their respective jobs should now lose their jobs so that "MS" can
> >be punished?  These are the people that would be the first to go.
> 
> That would be up to the powers that be at MS. The exact same ones that set
the
> company on the course of screwing everyone in (and outside) the software
> industry. Why the punishers or the advocates of "give them what they
deserve"
> should be held responsible for that and they should get away with *two*
things
> now is beyond me...

Never said they should.

> >Cutbacks typically occur at the lowest levels.  Is this fair and just in
> >your mind?
> 
> No. Life's unfair. That's why society cling so much to laws, usually,
because
> they want to keep every ounce of honesty and fairness they can get, it's
> already preciously little.
> 
> >The window cleaner never made anyone lose their job.
> >Neither did the grunt software guys who were just doing what their
> >managers told them to do.
> 
> Then again, others went to work for them because they saw so much dough
coming
> in and were willing to throw away their principles by working for a company
> with such low ethics.

Please.  I didn't know that when you sign on to work for MS that you had to
discard your conscience as well.  I don't think that was in their contracts
for
employment, or in anyone's mind when they signed on.  This view is a bit
extreme and unrealistic.

> >>Rubbish. That was supposed to be the concern of those employees (ie. don't
> >>work for a company that does things that might get it punished) and the
> >>company itself (ie. it's irresponsible against your own people to do such
> >>things).
> >Most employees that actually make things happen (ie. write software,
> >etc.) have little part in the decision making process.  Why should they
> >be punished for the attitudes and actions of their high-level
> >management?
> 
> The company gets punished and the company (the high-level management)
decides
> how it's to be handled.
> It's also not fair that those high up, the ones using the "cut those fuckers
> off", are making the most money while they one that you say do the grunt
work
> get a lot less. So why not get worked up over that, instead of over the
> appliance of US law to not just people but companies (and rich companies)
too.
> Subjecting everybody, including rich companies, to the same laws is justice.

The anti-trust laws apply to corporations.  Corporations, in the eyes of the
law are effectively their own people.  They can be held accountable for crimes
and even go bankrupt independently of those people who comprise them. 
Anti-trust laws have no application to individuals.

> >>You're saying that a drugs cartel shouldn't be taken out of business
> >>because it makes a lot of people lose their income...
> >A drug cartel is not an incorporated business.
> 
> An inc. is also a matter a definition in a law, which you are arguing
> vehemently should not be adhered to if some people might suffer.
> Drugs cartel also have cleaners and people doing the grunt work (I'll
exclude
> hitmen etc. from this), yet you have no problem with them losing their jobs
> just because their employer is "not an incorporated business" (which, BTW,
is
> highly unlikely, since the term "front" hasn't come into being for nothing).
> So, if you weren't (alledgedly) part of the "law-abiding" part anyway, it's
> okay to apply laws to you and make plenty of people suffer in the process,
but
> if you were (sort-of) in the "law-abiding" part, it's not okay to apply
those
> laws that are supposedly abided...
> Yeah, that sure makes sense (not).

Sorry, but hitmen and drug trafficking have little applicability to what we
are
discussing.

> >>How many of Al Capone's people (which must have included a lot of legally
> >>employed people) have lost their jobs when he was nailed? Should he not
> >>have been nailed?
> 
> (no answer here, obviously)

Obviously.

> >>But as usual, the "government" must be blamed for everything, and maybe
> >>some others, but sure don't blame Microsoft itself for the shit they put
> >>the industry and their own people in.
> >>Grow up.
> >Look... I'm the first guy to come down on Microsoft for their actions
> >and the quality of their software, but causing innocent people to suffer
> >just doesn't make sense.  What is accomplished in executing wrath upon
> >Microsoft?  What we should all be concerned about is how to prevent such
> >a thing from happening in the future, *by any company*, not just
> >Microsoft.
> 
> OK then, then look at the other option, *not* punishing MS.
> What is accomplished with that?

Nothing, which is why I haven't suggested that course of action.

> They'll have gotten the signal that they can bloody well do as they please,
> that's what. And no need to be acting as if they're law-abiding either.

As I said before, they can be handcuffed (prevented from causing future harm)
without being handcuffed and beaten.

> Choosing against a punishment for MS is choosing for it becoming the next US
> government. They already have far too much a hold on essential
infrastructure
> and they will use whatever means they have to increase *their* power, and
they
> won't even have to mumble things about "innovate" and "consumers" etc.

This is quite a paranoid view.
 
> >>>>>Retaliation and vengeance have no place in business
> >>>>MS does little else.
> >>>>Read the legal papers of the Caldera case, with such great MS exec
> >>>>quotes as "cut those fuckers off". No vengeance and retaliation, you
> >>>>say???
> >>>MS makes money. They do what they have been allowed to do in order to
> >>>make money.
> >>Ah, so MS can kill all the companies it wants and make all the people
> >>unemployed it wants if it makes a buck, but the "government" cannot do
> >>anything to uphold the law and/or punish MS for breaking it "because
> >>people's livelihoods depends on their jobs". Yeah, right.
> >If the government had a problem with their actions, it should have acted
> >immediately.
> 
> A[p]art from the obvious slowness of the judicial system, government and
politics
> (how long do you guess the "extreme freedom to make a buck" and pro-MS lobby
> have held up actions?), there is nothing in the law that says this adagium.
> Should a murderer not be tried because the police couldn't find him in a
> month. Or if his victim hasn't died yet after having been poisoned with a
slow
> yet lethal substance?

We're not dealing with murderers and poison.  Microsoft is not currently
residing in a holding cell, either.

> If eg. 30 years after the (last!) criminal offense, MS still hasn't been
tried
> and found guilty, then it will have become precluded by the lapse of time.
> 
> >The fact that it had to "find a fact" to now start
> >applying laws to Microsoft demonstrates that the government had no
> >problem with what MS was doing in the past.
> 
> Rubbish, and you know it.

If I knew it to be rubbish then I wouldn't have stated it.

> Like I said, the government can do no good. If they bud in (too) soon, they
> get fried, but when they stay back in the hope (according to right-wingers
the
> "knowledge" ofcourse) that "the market" will handle it (yeah, monopolies
sure
> tend to break themselves up...) and finally decide it doesn't, they haven't
> stepped in right away and therefore have forfeited their right to interfere.
> Yeah, right.

The government can literally do whatever it wants.  The right thing to do is a
different matter entirely.

> >>>If the government changes their mind and says Microsoft is no longer
> >>>allowed to do a given thing, it can't retroactively punish them.
> >>>That's in the Constitution of the US.
> >>This whole case is about having done things they were *not* allowed to do.
> >>And BTW any punishment is retroactive. That's also in your Constitution:
> >>you are innocent until you actually do something ellegal (and subsequently
> >>are found guilty).
> >Right, but if the law didn't exist or apply at the time it was broken,
> >one can't be punished for breaking it.
> 
> The laws in question are older than Gates and Ballmer together.

The charges are quite recent, however, compared to the time the actions were
perpetrated.

> >>>>The judicial system != government in any modern society (it would be in
> >>>>an MS society).
> [ SNIP ]
> >>>that spoke of the three branches of government in the US, one of which
> >>>being the Judicial?
> >>In that case, there are at least two meanings for the word "government".
> >>One is "the way this country is run and how power is divided", the other
> >>is "the day to day administration and legislature".
> >>The latter can break its own rules and be brought to justice for it by
> >>part of the former (of course, it can easily change the law later).
> >That's what checks and balances are all about, if I'm reading you
> >correctly, but that has little to do with what is occurring here.  This
> >also doesn't change the fact that the judicial system shares
> >theoretically 1/3 of the governing ability of the US, and is therefore,
> >just as much a part of the government as any of the other branches.
> 
> You're just trying to redefine the judicial system as part of the
government.

Perhaps you are using the word "government" differently.  What, precisely, do
you mean by "government".  To me it is the totality of the three branches.

> If it were that way, there would have been no need to have a government
> (Justice Department) attorney present a case before a judge; MS would just
> have been convicted.

The branches of the government have a rigid system of checks and balances
preventing such "justice by decree" from happening.

> This judge is an independent person, who looks at the facts and the laws and
> determines whether the latter have been broken. If so (which he said), then
> the *two* parties (gov and MS) get to argue what "punishment" should be
> imposed, and *he* will decide.
> 
> >>>>>Fair market practices are the court's concern.
> >>>>No, they were the concern of the makers of the anti-trust laws.
> >>>>The court is only concerned with the (lack of) adherence to those laws.
> >>>The court is concerned with doing everything in its power to uphold those
> >>>laws.
> >>That's what I said, in different words.
> >>You however said the court was concerned with "fair market practices",
> >>which you have now changed to "upholding the laws [of anti-trust]".
> >>Quite a change...
> >Not really, considering that the focus of anti-trust laws is upholding
> >fair market practices.
> 
> They are related, by accident, but not at all the same.
> The courts are only (*only*) concerned with law enforcement. What's in the
law
> is irrelevant until at least the verdict (if a verdict may be given that
> addresses the concerns of the law itself, then it may come into it at that
> point).

The court is as concerned with upholding the spirit of the laws as it is with
upholding the letter of the laws, therefore, the laws themselves are quite a
relevant concern.

> What is to be put *into* the law is upto the government, your
representatives.

Ah.. so you mean the legislature when you refer to "government"?
 
> >>>>Competing fairly from now on (who, MS??? A snowball's chance in hell) is
> >>>>completely irrelevant, the past conduct is to be addressed.
> >>>If so, then it will have profoundly negative effects with little or no
> >>>positive effects. Trying to undo the damage Microsoft has done will be
> >>>like trying to un-pee in a pool.
> >>... or like trying to un-kill someone. Doesn't stop the US from killing
> >>people that have been found guilty of murder.
> >>It's the eternal problem of judicial systems; little comes of the
> >>punishment itself, except
> >>1) punish wrongdoing
> >>2) provide some ethical justice to the victims (and there are plenty here)
> >>3) deterring others doing the same
> >>4) deterring continued illegal conduct
> >Yes, but in the case of murder, the only person punished is the
> >murderer.
> 
> His/her mother/father loses a son/daughter.
> His/her brother/sister loses a brother/sister.
> His/her wife/husband loses a husband/wife.
> His/her child(ren) lose(s a) father/mother.
> etc.
> 
> >In the case of Microsoft, many people will be punished for
> >the transgressions of the few.  This is not just.
> 
> Apart from the debatable innocence of a lot of MS employees:

Debatable innocence??  You're carrying this a bit too far.

> Is it just that the company will get away with *punishing* a lot of
companies
> and people *without* so much as a trial?

Heretofore the government has let them do so.

> Is it just that they have made a lot of money by riding the wave of crime?

The government is currently in the process of determining if any crimes were
committed.

> Is it just that there will be no stopping the company after such a no
> punishment decision?

Prevention is a better alternative to punishment.

> You *will* suffer from them not being punished and you *will* moan and groan 

> about it. A company with the morals and ethics of MS is the closest we are
to 
> an Orwellian society by a long shot. They will have a lot less empathy for 
> those "poor" janitors at some company than I have, after they have declared 
> themselves government of the US (okay, it won't be so sudden as a
declaration,
> but it is a real danger of them becoming the de facto government, and not
only
> in the US).

Again the paranoia.  Why would MS have any interest in governing the US?  It's
too expensive and would really hurt their profit margin for very little gain.
 
> >>Microsoft has shown again and again that they will not stop their conduct
> >>willingly until they are forced to; so they effectively said "do it to us
> >>or stuff your laws". The latter is unacceptable for any country with a
> >>judicial system worth a bean, so they left no other option than "do it to
> >>us".
> >>People losing their jobs should complain to Gates, Ballmer, Silverberg,
> >>Maples, etc.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               15-Nov-99 21:15:17
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: (2/2) Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

> >"Do it to us" should mean "stop this from happening again," not "hurt
> >us".  They can be handcuffed without being handcuffed and beaten.
> 
> "Stop us or stuff your laws"????? That's what you're saying.

No, I'm saying "stop this from happening again," not "hurt us".  They can be
handcuffed without being handcuffed and beaten.

> *They* decide what they do. Just because the opportunity is there, doesn't
> mean you're forced to do something. *They* are in the position of stopping
> "this" from happening again, and they keep showing that they *don't want to
> stop it*. That is exactly what is saying "nail us or sod off".

The government can prevent them from executing monopoly control on the market
without "punishing" MS.

> Too bad the government just cannot sod off.
> They only have themselves to blame. I am sorry for all those at MS that must
> suffer the consequences innocently (a lot less than you're implying, I'm
> sure), but if they (really) wanted to prevent that (and not just roll in
dough
> and feel triumphant because they squashed another upstart with real
> innovation), they should have organised a mutiny.

That is too laughable to even earn a response (other than this one).

> >>Not punishing them now gives them the go-ahead on everything they feel is
> >>desirable and literally places them above the law. That would only be the
> >>start of "the damage MS has done"...
> >Punishing them doesn't prevent them from doing their damage again,
> >unless the punishment is so severe as to shut them down altogether.
> >Preventing them from holding monopoly power must be the focus of the
> >court.
> 
> Punishing them may mean being broken up in such a manner that competition is
> restored, or otherwise all participants have equal chances.

I would view that as prevention, not punishment.  Punishment would be
deliberately disadvantaging them with respect to competitors.

> OTOH, they might also be forced to pay millions (just a fraction of what
they
> extorted from the biz) which may eg. be used to finance upstarts of keep
> suffering competitors in business (and *don't complain about them getting
> money, because *they too* have innocent janitors that are the first to go
when
> monopolist bully MS, as they themselves said, "smile while we pull the
> trigger"; ah, poor MS).

And who decides exactly which companies receive this "aide"?  How is that fair
to the companies that don't receive said "aide"?  It's still playing favorites
and is ultimately destructive.

> >>If you don't want MS to be punished after having been found guilty, you
> >>just don't want a judicial system. It's that simple.
> >Perhaps I just have more sympathy for working class folks.
> 
> I have too. There's a lot more working class folks at non-MS companies than
at
> MS, and they have a lot tougher job (or a lot less jobs!) with un unpunished
> MS.
> You're reasoning "I don't want to spend this dime" even though spending it
> will bring you ten bucks.

How many more jobs are riding on the assumption that they will be supporting
MS
products in the future?  For a comparison, how many jobs were riding on
supporting Caldera's DOS when it was disadvantaged?

> >If it were my job on the line, this angry mob style of justice would prompt
> >me to countersue the government.
> 
> Selfcentered. We're talking on a society-wide scale here. Should all of
> society (and not just US!) suffer because you happened to have taken a job
> "innocently" at a company that "pulls the trigger" on other companies "while
> smiling"?

It's very amusing how you appropriate guilt to MS employees.

> Just countersue the government and prove me right again.

Sorry, but I am a guilty employee of a different behemoth monopolist (IBM).

> It's always the damned government. "I just wished there were anarchy" 
> (until it meant you not getting any roads built for you, or no well-fare 
> when you've been made redundant, or the "russkis" had come barging into the 
> door because there wasn't a government to stop them).
> 
> There are rules in a society, for better *and* for worse. What's better for
an
> individual is often worse for the rest.
> Live with it or go live on Mars.

You've not demonstrated how punishing MS would be beneficial.  The US has
nearly always favored the rights of the individual over that of the larger
group.  Nazis are allowed to conduct peaceful public speeches.  The courts
would rather let a guilty man go free than convict an innocent man. 
Demonstrations of this fact occur throughout US history.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ivaes@hr.nl                                       15-Nov-99 14:25:13
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Illya Vaes <ivaes@hr.nl>

Marty wrote:
>Bob Germer wrote:
>>   Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> said:
>>> Two wrongs don't make a right.
>>What the government is doing is enforcing the law which is not a wrong. If
>>you think so, you fail to understand the entire concept of law.
>The "wrong" to which I was referring would be these wonderful fines that
>everyone is proposing are slapped against MS, not the enforcement of 
>anti-trust laws.

Maybe you can introduce me to this Eve Ryone sometime, I hear she's a nice
gal. I've not heard anyone specifically proposing to fine MS in this
discussion and certainly not Eve. We've all been talking about the enforcement
of anti-trust laws, by necessity including "punishment'. The exact terms of
this "punishment" are up to the judge, after hearing both the governments' and
MS' cases.

-- 
Illya Vaes   (ivaes@hr.nl)        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385           Not speaking for anyone but myself

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               15-Nov-99 21:20:26
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Bob Germer wrote:
> 
> On <3KcvOMPOEPq1eeORav0FX3CJHRrw@4ax.com>, on 11/15/99 at 01:30 AM,
>    Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> said:
> 
> > Tsk. Tsk.
> 
> > Yes, it is a personal attack. Just up your street BTW
> 
> Typical conduct of an Arab terrorist. You can't win a rational argument so
> you attempt to blow others up.

Hmm... judging by the ease and flair with which he wrote out that racial slur,
perhaps he is old and ignorant as his previous postings have implied.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org                      15-Nov-99 18:24:29
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org>

Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3830BE46.58DBD33E@stny.rr.com...
> Illya Vaes wrote:
> >
> > Marty wrote:
<trimmed>
>
> Please.  I didn't know that when you sign on to work for MS that you had
to
> discard your conscience as well.  I don't think that was in their
contracts for
> employment, or in anyone's mind when they signed on.  This view is a bit
> extreme and unrealistic.
>

So how many MS employees do you know personally?

<trimmed>
>
> The anti-trust laws apply to corporations.  Corporations, in the eyes of
the
> law are effectively their own people.  They can be held accountable for
crimes
> and even go bankrupt independently of those people who comprise them.
> Anti-trust laws have no application to individuals.
>

Under law in the United States a Corporation cannot be held criminally
liable for anything.  Only people can.

<trimmed>



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CampusCWIX (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org                      15-Nov-99 18:26:23
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org>

Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3830BF84.D4A81F95@stny.rr.com...
> Bob Germer wrote:
> >
> > On <3KcvOMPOEPq1eeORav0FX3CJHRrw@4ax.com>, on 11/15/99 at 01:30 AM,
> >    Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> said:
> >
> > > Tsk. Tsk.
> >
> > > Yes, it is a personal attack. Just up your street BTW
> >
> > Typical conduct of an Arab terrorist. You can't win a rational argument
so
> > you attempt to blow others up.
>
> Hmm... judging by the ease and flair with which he wrote out that racial
slur,
> perhaps he is old and ignorant as his previous postings have implied.

Good point, not all terrorists are Arabs.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CampusCWIX (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cmyers@austin.rr.com                              15-Nov-99 20:23:09
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Chad Myers" <cmyers@austin.rr.com>

"Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote in message
news:80qf52$539$1@news.campuscwix.net...
> <trimmed>
> >
> > The anti-trust laws apply to corporations.  Corporations, in the eyes of
> the
> > law are effectively their own people.  They can be held accountable for
> crimes
> > and even go bankrupt independently of those people who comprise them.
> > Anti-trust laws have no application to individuals.
> >
>
> Under law in the United States a Corporation cannot be held criminally
> liable for anything.  Only people can.

This is a civil trial, though. Corporations can be held liable for
civil suits.

Chad



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Jump.Net (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               15-Nov-99 21:40:26
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

"uno@40th.com" wrote:
> 
> Who here, if they were just starting today, would install OS2
> as the sole (99% use) OS?

Me.

> If you have to guts to admit it, at least say why you'd use OS2 (avoid 
> cliches if possible) instead of say, NT4.

1] Less hardware intensive
2] I prefer the GUI
3] Availability of most *nix software, including X itself
4] Powerful REXX shell scripting language built in
5] Easy to configure and maintain
6] Can't catch any of the common Win virii
7] Runs any application that I want to use
8] Smaller hard drive footprint
(and just to piss off David)
9] Cracks RC5 keys 5% faster on my current hardware

> I doubt more than a couple will dare.  I know none will have a good reason.

Perhaps not a good reason in your own mind, but you've already made your
choice.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               15-Nov-99 21:48:14
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: Re: Tholen's Hypocrisy and Illogic Exposed Once again

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
> 
> From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu
> Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
> Subject: Re: Glatt Digest, volume 2450455
> Date: 8 Jan 1997 01:29:35 GMT
> Organization: University of Hawaii
> Message-ID: <5aut9v$e1k@news.Hawaii.Edu>
> 
> >Did I say "all" anywhere?
> 
> It's implicit in a similarity comparison.

Too bad he lacks the courage to respond to you anymore after your having
utterly humiliated him so many times.  It's also too bad that all it takes to
utterly humiliate him is to quote his own conflicting, ignorant words.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: wsonna@ibm.net                                    16-Nov-99 02:43:23
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: wsonna@ibm.net (William Sonna)

On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 00:48:40, jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt) 
wrote:

> >> >>>Bob Germer
> >> >>>Since I had no desire to run DOS or Windows I had no desire to pay for
> >> >>>same. But MicroSoft via its per processor licensing policy with
virtually
> >> >>>every PC manufacturer made me pay for worthless crap.
>  
> >> >>Jeff Glatt
> >> >>That's because you're an incompetent consumer. I routinely buy
> >> >>computers without any OS installed. (I always insist upon installing
> >> >>the OS myself). You simply don't know how to do this.
>  
> >> >William Sonna
> >> >I routinely buy them, too. But I'm sick of no-name cheapos.
>  
> >> I do not buy junk. All of my computers have things such as Adaptec
> >> SCSI controllers, Tyan motherboards, Seagate HDs, Intel CPUs, etc.
> >> 
> >> Of course, when you buy good stuff, you can negotiate better what you
> >> want.
> >> 
> >> >So tell 
> >> >me, which major manufacturer will sell you a computer without Windows?
> >> >All I've ever heard is "we don't sell them that way".
> >>  
> >> Ah, I see your problem. You're trying to buy a Humvee from Ford. Big,
> >> assembly line driven companies do not usually deal with custom
> >> requests. They typically offer a small set of pre-assembled "options",
> >> and that's it.
>  
> >Translation: They didn't used to
> 
> How would you know what VARs did and didn't do? You obviously don't
> even know about the existence of them.
> 
> >and Jeff is not sure if they do 
> >nowdays or not.
> 
> No, I'm the one who is knowledgeable about, and aware of, the services
> that VARs offer. You're the helpless, ignorant, clueless consumer who
> can't even manage to locate a copy of Computer Shopper, let alone
> understand what its contents are.
> 

Computer Shopper =  Large type, glossy ads, superficial reviews and 
short sentences. (And apparently the choice of one loudmouth).

Stands to reason you'd be a "Computer Shopper" kind of guy.  You 
probably think its an engineering journal.

[snip]
 
> >Translation : Jeff doesn't care anyway since he rolls his own.  And 
> >there are lots of places that will sell you parts or pre-assembled 
> >parts if that's what you want to do.
> 
> Translation: William is illiterate as well as being ignorant of the
> services offered by countless VARs. He can't even manage to locate a
> copy of Computer Shopper, let alone understand what its contents are.
> 

Are you trying to see how many plugs for Computer Shopper you can fit 
in one post?

Jeff, you sound like a real Computer Shopper kind of guy.

Do you read The Hard Edge, or are the paragraphs too long?

> >Incidentally, that's NOT what I want to do (anymore);
> 
> Are you presuming that you ever had the ability to do so?

To presume to have the ability to do what one has already done is an 
oxymoron.

You, Mr "Computer Shopper" Glatt,  are simply a moron.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               15-Nov-99 22:10:00
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Chad Mulligan wrote:
> 
> Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3830BE46.58DBD33E@stny.rr.com...
> > Illya Vaes wrote:
> > >
> > > Marty wrote:
> <trimmed>
> >
> > Please.  I didn't know that when you sign on to work for MS that you had
> to
> > discard your conscience as well.  I don't think that was in their
> contracts for
> > employment, or in anyone's mind when they signed on.  This view is a bit
> > extreme and unrealistic.
> 
> So how many MS employees do you know personally?

I knew one who was signing on with them out of college.  Although I ribbed him
quite a bit about it, he did not go in with the absurd mentality of world
domination or knowing that he was becoming part of a criminal organization as
has been implied by several less well-glued individuals.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: wsonna@ibm.net                                    16-Nov-99 03:01:18
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: wsonna@ibm.net (William Sonna)

On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 05:15:38, David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com> 
wrote:

> In article <05C6FUhLDNUU-pn2-8dwWyuF5EEt5@localhost>, wsonna@ibm.net says...
> >On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 02:58:07, Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> 
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, William Sonna said :
> >> 
> >> > Could you please tell us which major manufacturers sell their 
> >> > computers without Windows?
> >> > 
> >> I tend to avoid major OEMs since I find the quality of their consumer
> >> machines of questionable quality. I tend to get my own put together
> >> from hand picked components, then delivered.
> >> 
> >> There are small manufacturers in myriad numbers that'll sell machines
> >> without windows installed. 
> >
> >In plain english - you don't really know of any and you don't really 
> >care to since you prefer to roll your own.
> >
> 
> Plain English is that there are plenty of small computer makers who will
give 
> you a machine with no Windows if you ask.
> 
> Just because you lack the know how to find one doesn't mean it isn't
happening.

The machine I'm typing this post on is a clone.  And I bought it 
without Windows.  So what?

I said MAJOR MANUFACTURERS.  I am not a major manufacturer.  You are 
not a major manufacturer.  Jeff Glatt is not a major manufacturer 
(except when he's manic, apparently; then he reads Computer Shopper 
and becomes one).

Read my lips: MAJOR MANUFACTURER.  Not hacker/developer wannabees.  
Not penny-pinching cheapskates trying to save a buck.  MAJOR 
MANUFACTURERS.

I already know about clones.  I have four of them.  MAJOR 
MANUFACTURERS.

Now, do you have any real information or do you just want to blow 
smoke?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               15-Nov-99 22:12:01
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:16
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Chad Mulligan wrote:
> 
> Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3830BF84.D4A81F95@stny.rr.com...
> > Bob Germer wrote:
> > >
> > > On <3KcvOMPOEPq1eeORav0FX3CJHRrw@4ax.com>, on 11/15/99 at 01:30 AM,
> > >    Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> said:
> > >
> > > > Tsk. Tsk.
> > >
> > > > Yes, it is a personal attack. Just up your street BTW
> > >
> > > Typical conduct of an Arab terrorist. You can't win a rational argument
> > > so you attempt to blow others up.
> >
> > Hmm... judging by the ease and flair with which he wrote out that racial
> > slur, perhaps he is old and ignorant as his previous postings have
implied.
> 
> Good point, not all terrorists are Arabs.

Another high quality individual I see.  Sad, but not terribly surprising.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: wsonna@ibm.net                                    16-Nov-99 03:16:26
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:17
Subj: Re: Windows posting activitiy...

From: wsonna@ibm.net (William Sonna)

On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:47:06, "David T. Johnson" 
<djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote:

> It seems that our resident "Windows Advocates" here, McCoy, Glatt, and
> Robinson, have been posting here more frequently and their posts are
> more antagonstic than usual.  Is this a response to Microsoft's recent
> court defeats?

I'd say they seem a bit upset and prone to unwarranted tirades.  But 
since they don't use OS/2 (where bad news is routine), they are not 
accustomed to the kind of insecurity that the 1-2 punch of Gates 
putting Win'98 on the chopping block and the Judge putting Microsoft 
on the chopping block brings to their computing lives.

What they fail to grasp is that three months from now, Win '2000 will 
be out, the verdict will be under appeal, Gates will be raking in the 
bucks as always, and they will be happily spending their money new 
hardware and software to run on the OS of the future.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kinghell@earthlink.net                            15-Nov-99 22:19:18
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:17
Subj: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES EXIST<

From: Diablo <kinghell@earthlink.net>

I Here Their Is A Version Of Os/2 Warp 4 That Can Run
Windows 95 Insted Of Win 3.1 And That People Who
Have Been Inside IBM Have Actually Seen It Work
But Can't Be Released Because Microsoft Wont Alow It
I Would Love It If Some One Could Get A Copy Of It
And Post It Here Or Give An FTP SITE To Where It
Is At. 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Hell (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         16-Nov-99 04:30:20
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:17
Subj: Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES EX

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Diablo writes:

> I Would Love It If Some One Could Get A Copy Of It
> And Post It Here

Quite illegal, even if it existed.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               16-Nov-99 00:14:27
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:17
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451495

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

 HELLO DAVE THOLEN,  MY NAME IS DOCTOR SBAITSO.

 I AM HERE TO HELP YOU.
 PLEASE SAY WHATEVER IS IN YOUR MIND FREELY,
 OUR CONVERSATION WILL BE KEPT IN HIGH CONFIDENCE.
 MEMORY CONTENTS WILL BE WIPED OFF AFTER YOU LEAVE.

 SO, TELL ME ABOUT YOUR PROBLEMS.

Dave Tholen wrote:
> Well, only one posting from Marty for today's digest, and he didn't waste 
> any time spewing invective for his "infantile game".

WHAT DOES THAT SUGGEST TO YOU?

> How ironic that he referred to "reasonable people", considering how 
> unreasonable he has been himself.

DO SUCH QUESTIONS OFTEN COME TO YOUR MIND ?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               16-Nov-99 00:26:04
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:17
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451494

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

 HELLO DAVE THOLEN,  MY NAME IS DOCTOR SBAITSO.

 I AM HERE TO HELP YOU.
 PLEASE SAY WHATEVER IS IN YOUR MIND FREELY,
 OUR CONVERSATION WILL BE KEPT IN HIGH CONFIDENCE.
 MEMORY CONTENTS WILL BE WIPED OFF AFTER YOU LEAVE.

 SO, TELL ME ABOUT YOUR PROBLEMS.

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Once again, Marty demonstrated his hypocrisy by wasting more bandwidth 
> responding to articles that he claimed he would not respond to.

DOES TALKING TO ME HELP?

> Of more interest, however, is his lack of a summary, as requested by 
> Bennie Nelson.

IS THAT SO?

> Despite the fact that my initial counterpoint was to a mistake made by 
> Timbol, and the fact that I was able to summarize my point without 
> reference to personalities, Marty tried to explain his lack of a summary 
> by claiming that he can't summarize without reference to personalities.

COME ON, POUR OUT YOUR THOUGHTS

> What a cop out!

WHAT IS IT THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW?

> Meanwhile, he still hasn't figured out the difference between two simple
tests
> and the text of the article that contained them.

HAVE YOU TRIED TO ASK FOR HELP?

> He's also resorting to more lies, claiming that I've admitted to all 
> evidence to the contrary.

CAN YOU ELABORATE MORE ON THAT?

> Amazing how USENET can corrupt someone like that.

DOES THAT QUESTION REALLY INTEREST YOU ?

> Here's today's digest of his six postings:

LET'S CHANGE THE SUBJECT, YOU WERE TELLING ME ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE?

> 1> Your request is one I cannot possibly address, as every point I have
> 1> made has been a counterpoint to a mistake Dave has made.  Thus I
> 1> cannot give an individual summary of ideas without reference to
> 1> personalities.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

DOES THAT REASON EXPLAIN ANYTHING ELSE?

> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

FORGET ABOUT ME, I AM MORE CONCERN OF YOU
 
> 2> Below, Dave tries to convince Curtis to take up his ways and discuss
> 2> something he knows nothing about.  Most people feel (rightfully so)
> 2> that if they have no knowledge of something that they aren't qualified
> 2> to discuss it.  This never stopped Dave, however.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
> 3> Dave exposed his hypocritical idiocy in many additional threads today,
> 3> which further demonstrates hypocrisy based on his attacks on me for
> 3> responding to his (self-admitted) "baby-talk tripe" on the grounds that
> 3> I am wasting bandwidth.  The only way he thinks he can save face is by
> 3> ignoring my points and not responding to them directly in his own
> 3> "infantile game", but this does little to cover up his blatant
> 3> ineptitude and inability to address the issues I've raised.  In fact,
> 3> he's even been kind enough to collect several of these issues right
> 3> here, so he can demonstrate in one convenient place how he ignores
> 3> relevant points, responding with unintelligible idiocy.  Perhaps he
> 3> did it to help me prove my points, or perhaps he's just that inept.
> 3> Either way, Tholen loses (or that would be "displays", as this seems
> 3> to be Dave's universal word that can mean anything he wants it to).
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
> 3> Also note that 65 times in a previous posting Dave responded with the
> 3> same Eliza line in quotes with no attribution and a statement about his
> 3> infantile wrath.  Despite the fact that he considers this a response,
> 3> just like the ones he uses in his infantile game with Eric (aka
> 3> Tholenbot), he seems unable to tell that this response is an
> 3> inappropriate non-response.  Par for the course for our alleged
> 3> "scientist".  He also ignored the fact that he was making a complete
> 3> buffoon out of himself whilst hypocritically wasting bandwidth,
> 3> playing infantile games, and posting baby-talk tripe.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
> 3> Meanwhile, he still maintains that Java 1.2 functionality is
> 3> implemented in OS/2 Java 1.1.8, despite the overwhelming evidence
> 3> against him.  In yet another attempt to save face, he has ignored
> 3> all evidence to the contrary, as he has admitted doing in the past,
> 3> and reiterated his unsubstantiated erroneous claims with his
> 3> generalized terms, without examining the JDK in question itself, or
> 3> knowing enough about the subject to be able to do so.  This is quite
> 3> typical of Tholen and has come to be expected.

> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
> 3> He even felt the need to reintroduce inappropriate analogies, which
> 3> have already been debunked, to demonstrate his "point" (which has also
> 3> already been debunked).  All this he does to avoid actually learning a
> 3> thing or two about Java and examining the real, hard evidence himself.
> 3> No surprise there.

> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
> 3> Lastly, Dave seems to be having trouble distinguishing between
> 3> invective and descriptive phrases.  He even hypocritically accused
> 3> others of invective and insulted the same person in the same post!
> 3> Looks like he'll stop at nothing to twist things around to agree
> 3> with his view of the world.

> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
> 4> We have "exmaine"'d Dave's published record right here on Usenet.  It
> 4> seems that Curtis' fears are correct.

> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
> 4> And regardless of how much Dave pontificates without knowing Java, how
> 4> it works, and how it is used, he is incorrect.  Too bad he'd rather
> 4> call people dishonest liars than learn a thing or two about Java and
> 4> check out his "facts" for himself.  Par for the course for our
> 4> "scientist".

> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
> 4> Dave doesn't seem to realize that Hawaii is part of the US now.  His
> 4> unsubstantiated statistics obviously predate that fact.

> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
> 4> And perhaps the arch-hypocrite should learn some Java before telling us
> 4> what is implemented and what is not.

> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
> 5> Dave Tholen wrote:

> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
> 6> Consistent with Tholen's infantile game and hypocrisy:

> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
> 6> He had no knowledge of the condition of the archive well into the
> 6> discussion about the archive.  One wonders how he could discuss
> 6> something he obviously knew nothing about.  However, given Tholen's
> 6> track record, this doesn't come across as surprising.

> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
> 6> What's unfortunate about this inappropriate analogy is that Dave didn't
> 6> "apply power" to this "light bulb" until well after he started spewing
> 6> forth erroneous information, telling us about the "light" it "sheds".
> 6> Discussing something he knew nothing about, turning about to be wrong
> 6> in his discussions, and then realizing that he couldn't even read the
> 6> file he was discussing is obvious evidence of rather severe ineptitude,
> 6> in areas of 1] having enough knowledge to not require viewing the
> 6> evidence in question, and 2] covering his tracks after making several
> 6> mistakes.

> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
> 6> [remaining hypocritical repetitious waste of bandwidth snipped]

> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               16-Nov-99 00:35:22
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:17
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451498

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Well, it was too good to last.

TELL ME ABOUT YOUR OTHER INTERESTS

> Here's today's Marty digest:

WHY DON'T YOU ASK ME TO SAY SOMETHING?

> 1> You can always tell when Tholen is starting to get his panties
> 
> What alleged "panties", Marty?

WHY DO YOU ASK THIS QUESTION?

> How ironic, coming from someone who readers can tell has his "panties"
> in "a bunch" by his need to continue playing his "infantile game".

WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST?
 
> 1> in a bunch by the size of the phrase he hacks off and responds to.
> 
> I didn't "hack off" any of Lucien's article, Marty.

COULD YOU EXPLAIN FURTHER?

> I responded to all of it.

LET'S DISCUSS ABOUT SOME OTHER THINGS WHICH YOU MENTIONED QUITE A WHILE AGO

> By contrast, Lucien has regularly "hacked off" substantial portions of my
> articles.

O K , USUALLY HOW WOULD YOU DEAL WITH SUCH FEELINGS ?

> Apparently he is the one who has his "panties" in "a bunch", and 
> interesting that you didn't respond to him with such a comment.

WHO ELSE?

> Perhaps you'd like to try your hand at the two simple tests and tell 
> Lucien that he's wrong.

HOW ABOUT YOUR HAND AT THE TWO SIMPLE TESTS AND TELL LUCIEN THAT HE'S WRONG.

> 1> Sad how he gets so emotionally involved,
> 
> How ironic, coming from the person so emotionally involved that he needs to 
> play "infantile games".

YES, WE ALL NEED SOMETHING, BUT CAN YOU AFFORD S TO PLAY "INFANTILE GAMES".

> Also rather illogical, given that one does not need to become emotionally 
> involved to point out Lucien's errors.

I SURE WISH WE COULD USE TO BECOME EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED TO POINT OUT LUCIEN'S
ERRORS.

> 1> but I guess I would too if I routinely made that much of a jackass
> 1> out of myself in public.
> 
> As you are doing now, Marty.

SAME TO YOU!

> 2> Dave seems to think of himself as the incarnation of logic.
> 
> What seems to you is irrelevant, Marty.

ARE YOU REALLY TALKING ABOUT ME?

> 2> How unfortunate.
> 
> How ironic, coming from someone whose "infantile game" is unfortunate.

WHO DO YOU SUSPECT THE MOST?

> 2> Too bad Newtonian physics was a mere approximation of what was
> 2> actually happening based on observations.
> 
> Precisely why Curtis' brand of reasoning would have led him to call Newton 
> "inept", Marty.

IT IS HARD TO EXPLAIN DAVE THOLEN

> 2> Too bad Tholen "logic" is a mere approximation of what he mistakenly
> 2> perceives is actually happening based on bias and emotion.
> 
> What alleged "bias and emotion", Marty?

AH , WHAT KIND OF ANSWER WOULD PLEASE YOU THE MOST?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: malstrom@lessing.oit.umass.edu                    16-Nov-99 01:04:23
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:17
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: Jason <malstrom@lessing.oit.umass.edu>

David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com> wrote:
: In article <382c2f9b@oit.umass.edu>, malstrom@emily.oit.umass.edu says...

:>But your opinion is without merit and not made with factual knowledge.  Not 
:>that's anything new for this newsgroup.

: First, everyone's opinion has merit. 

Nope, not everyone's opinion has merit.  In fact, no one's opinion about 
everything has merit.

: Second, prove that my opinion is not 
: "made" with fact. 

You offered no facts, and the facts at my disposal directly conflicts 
with your opinion.  As far as one can tell, your opinion are made with 
fantasies rooted in either your dislike for OS/2, or your dislike for the 
people in this newsgroup.

: I've looked at Odin and it runs very little better than 
: previous versions.

Really, that is pretty laughable. 

: Prove me wrong.

I would think the burden of proof lies with you, but here I go anyway.

Well, their are several new apps working great, one being reported is 
Word 97.  Their are a lot of apps working a lot better then they were in 
previous version.  Their are a lot more apps doing something, rather than 
nothing.  You can now convert apps on the fly instead of having to convert 
ahead of time like in previous versions.  

I have gathered most of my data through first hand experience with the 
program.  My opinion that it is working a lot better, has a lot of fact 
backing it up.  Now if you had been an educated critic, you could have 
attacked Odin for real reasons, rather then made up ones.

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com                        16-Nov-99 07:18:03
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:17
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Brent Davies" <brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com>

Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> wrote in message
news:IAQwOEsjfA6i4ZdSHNjKjdfDXO6q@4ax.com...
| "Brent Davies" <brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com> posted:
|
[snip]
| >
| > So this means that the Hobbyist had it right.  For instance, HP went to
| > Adaptec and said, "we want to OEM your boards.  Here are the specs we
want.
| > Build them."  So Adaptec takes their design, adds what HP wants, and
ships
| > them out.
|
| And further more, don't think that these tweaks are necessarily good
| things in the end and really benefits the consumer.

These tweaks add propriety and cost to the equation, but they aren't all
bad.  Don't think I used SCSI boards as an arbitrary example.  I had a
miserable experience over the weekend.

I tried to put an Adaptec AAA-133U2 Array adapter into a Compaq Proliant
1600r.  This attempt failed miserably.  SmartStart (server setup and OS
installation assistant) wouldn't recognize the board as anything more than 3
SCSI busses.  I would not set any of those busses as bootable.  Compaq says
nothing about the issue, but Adaptec says, "Oh, yeah.  By the way,
SmartStart doesn't work with our card.  You must install the OS fresh."  On
top of that, there was the joyful problem of Adaptec SCSI controllers being
improperly typed as Symbios Logic controllers during NT install.  Adaptec
has a whole white paper on avoiding that pitfall.  So, Compaq has
affectively made it so only their RAID host adapters work optimally in their
servers.

However, they bring a lot more functionality to the table.  I have seen them
send warning singles for pre-failure of drives.  Compaq honors these
pre-failure alerts by replacing the drives, under warranty, before they
fail.  This pre-failure warning feature works with the Compaq controllers,
but won't work with third-party controllers.  It's a valuable feature, but
is it something that could be implemented on all hardware?  No without
standards, and I don't know of standards that allow for that functionality.

I think that these kinds of things are developed mainly to lock customers
into a certain vendor.  But as long as they are valuable features, these
practices can't be all bad.

-B

P.S.  We gave up on the Adaptec RAID controllers and are now buying Compaq
RAID controllers.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com                        16-Nov-99 07:23:11
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:17
Subj: Re: The Microsnot PR Quiz

From: "Brent Davies" <brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com>

M.Vaughn <mwvaugh-spamblows@life.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:mwvaugh-spamblows-1511991656460001@mac2322c.me.uiuc.edu...
| Astroturfer


Hahahahaha!  Is that your typical reply to someone who makes a commend about
your less-than creative tweaking of MS's name?

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ivaes@hr.nl                                       16-Nov-99 08:50:18
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:17
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Illya Vaes <ivaes@hr.nl>

Marty wrote:
>Chad Mulligan wrote:
>>So how many MS employees do you know personally?
>I knew one who was signing on with them out of college. Although I ribbed 
>him quite a bit about it, he did not go in with the absurd mentality of
>world domination or knowing that he was becoming part of a criminal
>organization as has been implied by several less well-glued individuals.

In other words, you pointed out he was going to work for a company with
questionable ethics, but he went to work for them anyway.
You just proved the point of their employees not being as innocent as you
portray them.

-- 
Illya Vaes   (ivaes@hr.nl)        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385           Not speaking for anyone but myself

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         16-Nov-99 08:59:24
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 05:11:17
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451499

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

If anyone doubts that Marty is playing an "infantile game" after
reading today's digest, please let me know.  What won't be obvious
from reading the digest is the fact that Marty responded to the
same article twice.

1> Consistent with Tholen's recent justification for his snippage:

1> I am deleting all but the most recent new text.

1> Dave apparently thought that since I went away for the weekend, I
1> would give him free reign to spew forth further hypocrisy and idiocy.

What alleged "hypocrisy and idiocy", Marty?

1> Fortunately there are many more persons other than myself capable of
1> pointing out such qualities in his writings (admittedly not a
1> difficult task).

Why not leave it to one of them, Marty?

1> Here's today's digest.

1> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
1> 
1> I warned you about going down that path, Dave.
 
1> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
1> 
1> I warned you about going down that path, Dave.
 
1> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
1> 
1> I warned you about going down that path, Dave.
 
1> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
1> 
1> I warned you about going down that path, Dave.
 
1> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
1> 
1> I warned you about going down that path, Dave.
 
1> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
1> 
1> I warned you about going down that path, Dave.
 
1> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
1> 
1> I warned you about going down that path, Dave.

1> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
1> 
1> I warned you about going down that path, Dave.

1> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
1> 
1> I warned you about going down that path, Dave.

2> Too bad he lacks the courage to respond to you anymore after your
2> having utterly humiliated him so many times.

Name one time, Marty, if you think you can.  Glatt has only humiliated
himself.

2> It's also too bad that all it takes to utterly humiliate him is to
2> quote his own conflicting, ignorant words.

What allegedly "conflicting, ignorant words", Marty?  Glatt can't even
recognize when additional information is present or absent.

3> HELLO DAVE THOLEN,  MY NAME IS DOCTOR SBAITSO.
3>
3> I AM HERE TO HELP YOU.
3> PLEASE SAY WHATEVER IS IN YOUR MIND FREELY,
3> OUR CONVERSATION WILL BE KEPT IN HIGH CONFIDENCE.
3> MEMORY CONTENTS WILL BE WIPED OFF AFTER YOU LEAVE.
3>
3> SO, TELL ME ABOUT YOUR PROBLEMS.

3> DOES TALKING TO ME HELP?

3> IS THAT SO?

3> COME ON, POUR OUT YOUR THOUGHTS

3> WHAT IS IT THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW?

3> HAVE YOU TRIED TO ASK FOR HELP?

3> CAN YOU ELABORATE MORE ON THAT?

3> DOES THAT QUESTION REALLY INTEREST YOU ?

3> LET'S CHANGE THE SUBJECT, YOU WERE TELLING ME ABOUT SOMETHING ELSE?

3> DOES THAT REASON EXPLAIN ANYTHING ELSE?

3> FORGET ABOUT ME, I AM MORE CONCERN OF YOU
 
3> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

3> PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
3> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
3> PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
3> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
3> PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
3> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
3> PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
3> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
3> PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
3> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
3> PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
3> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
3> PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
3> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
3> PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.

3> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
3> PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
3> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
3> PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
3> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
3> PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
3> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
3> PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
3> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
3> PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
3> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
3> PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.
 
3> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.
 
3> PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.

4> HELLO DAVE THOLEN,  MY NAME IS DOCTOR SBAITSO.
4>
4> I AM HERE TO HELP YOU.
4> PLEASE SAY WHATEVER IS IN YOUR MIND FREELY,
4> OUR CONVERSATION WILL BE KEPT IN HIGH CONFIDENCE.
4> MEMORY CONTENTS WILL BE WIPED OFF AFTER YOU LEAVE.
4>
4> SO, TELL ME ABOUT YOUR PROBLEMS.

4> WHAT DOES THAT SUGGEST TO YOU?

4> DO SUCH QUESTIONS OFTEN COME TO YOUR MIND ?

5> TELL ME ABOUT YOUR OTHER INTERESTS

5> WHY DON'T YOU ASK ME TO SAY SOMETHING?

5> WHY DO YOU ASK THIS QUESTION?

5> WHAT DO YOU SUGGEST?
 
5> COULD YOU EXPLAIN FURTHER?

5> LET'S DISCUSS ABOUT SOME OTHER THINGS WHICH YOU MENTIONED QUITE A WHILE
5> AGO

5> O K , USUALLY HOW WOULD YOU DEAL WITH SUCH FEELINGS ?

5> WHO ELSE?

5> HOW ABOUT YOUR HAND AT THE TWO SIMPLE TESTS AND TELL LUCIEN THAT HE'S
5> WRONG.

5> YES, WE ALL NEED SOMETHING, BUT CAN YOU AFFORD S TO PLAY "INFANTILE GAMES".

5> I SURE WISH WE COULD USE TO BECOME EMOTIONALLY INVOLVED TO POINT OUT
5> LUCIEN'S ERRORS.

5> SAME TO YOU!

5> ARE YOU REALLY TALKING ABOUT ME?

5> WHO DO YOU SUSPECT THE MOST?

5> IT IS HARD TO EXPLAIN DAVE THOLEN

5> AH , WHAT KIND OF ANSWER WOULD PLEASE YOU THE MOST?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org                      16-Nov-99 01:39:23
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 10:39:06
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org>

Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3830CB83.2BC9AD59@stny.rr.com...
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> > Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:3830BF84.D4A81F95@stny.rr.com...
> > > Bob Germer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On <3KcvOMPOEPq1eeORav0FX3CJHRrw@4ax.com>, on 11/15/99 at 01:30 AM,
> > > >    Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> said:
> > > >
> > > > > Tsk. Tsk.
> > > >
> > > > > Yes, it is a personal attack. Just up your street BTW
> > > >
> > > > Typical conduct of an Arab terrorist. You can't win a rational
argument
> > > > so you attempt to blow others up.
> > >
> > > Hmm... judging by the ease and flair with which he wrote out that
racial
> > > slur, perhaps he is old and ignorant as his previous postings have
implied.
> >
> > Good point, not all terrorists are Arabs.
>
> Another high quality individual I see.  Sad, but not terribly surprising.

I was agreeing with you stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CampusCWIX (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ivaes@hr.nl                                       16-Nov-99 10:28:18
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 10:39:06
Subj: (1/2) Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Illya Vaes <ivaes@hr.nl>

Marty wrote:
>>>be punished?  These are the people that would be the first to go.
>>That would be up to the powers that be at MS. The exact same ones that set 
>>the company on the course of screwing everyone in (and outside) the 
>>software industry. Why the punishers or the advocates of "give them what 
>>they deserve" should be held responsible for that and they should get away
>>with *two* things now is beyond me...
>Never said they should.

Saying "don't punish them for doing one thing" because otherwise they *might*
do another thing is letting them get away with doing two things.
The sacking of "innocent employees" is apparantly real enough to base the
verdict on, so it's real enough to consider them getting away with it too.
 
>>Then again, others went to work for them because they saw so much dough 
>>coming in and were willing to throw away their principles by working for
>>a company with such low ethics.
>Please.  I didn't know that when you sign on to work for MS that you had to
>discard your conscience as well.  I don't think that was in their contracts
>for employment, or in anyone's mind when they signed on.  This view is a
>bit extreme and unrealistic.

Of course it's not in their contracts. But they cannot have been unaware of
the lack of ethics of the company they started to work for, and as you gave an
example of a friend, they went and worked for them anyway.
And as David Raoul Derbes put so eloquently, they got the benefits of the
companies tactics until now, so why wouldn't they get the disadvantages etc.
too? You're saying MS employees should be shielded from the things they have
inflicted upon employees of other companies without you stepping up to the
plate to defend those.

>The anti-trust laws apply to corporations. Corporations, in the eyes of the
>law are effectively their own people. They can be held accountable for 
>crimes and even go bankrupt independently of those people who comprise
>them. Anti-trust laws have no application to individuals.

In other words, no-one can be held accountable for anti-trust offences, since
that would mean individuals would be punished for what "the company" has done.
Just toss out all laws governing business then...

>Sorry, but hitmen and drug trafficking have little applicability to what we
>are discussing.

All illegal "companies" also have legal fronts and have people working for
them legally and innocently, yet you have no problem blowing up those
companies because of some perceived difference in the exact crime that was
committed by the company...
I hope you or your beloved ones never find themselves working for a company
that turns out to be related to an illegal operation that is busted and find
your/themselves out of a job.

>>>>How many of Al Capone's people (which must have included a lot of
>>>>legally employed people) have lost their jobs when he was nailed? Should
>>>>he not have been nailed?
>>(no answer here, obviously)
>Obviously.

IOW, those _legally_ employed for someone that does illegal operation A can
screw themselves and live off the street, while those legally employed for
someone that does illegal operation B must be "defended" at all cost and
_therefore_ the latter someone must be allowed to continue illegal operation
B.
Not punishing is allowing to continue, and not allowing to continue is
punishing and *will* have consequences for some people.
 
>>OK then, then look at the other option, *not* punishing MS.
>>What is accomplished with that?
>Nothing, which is why I haven't suggested that course of action.

Yes you have. The mere word "punishing", with *your* interpretation of what
that "must" entail, has spurred this discussion where you take the view of
their punishment being not desirable. You (said you) want them not to be
punished for what they have done. In effect, you want the law to become a
sharade.
 
>>They'll have gotten the signal that they can bloody well do as they
>>please, that's what. And no need to be acting as if they're law-abiding
>>either.
>As I said before, they can be handcuffed (prevented from causing future
>harm) without being handcuffed and beaten.

*Anything* that will *effectively* prevent them from ever causing future harm
*will* be punishment for a company that is completely emersed into their
illegal and unethical behaviour.
And the little detail of not being allowed to enjoy the fruits of your illegal
activities is rather important in law too.

>>Choosing against a punishment for MS is choosing for it becoming the next
>>US government. They already have far too much a hold on essential 
>>infrastructure and they will use whatever means they have to increase 
>>*their* power, and they won't even have to mumble things about "innovate" 
>>and "consumers" etc.
>This is quite a paranoid view.

No it's not. It's just the logical conclusion of completely free reign for
unethical people who don't have to answer to anybody.
Have you seen what an impact the oil crisis had on an oil-based society like
the US? Can you imagine how it could be if there wasn't "just" a cartel of
bickering arabic countries that called the shots, but *one* company that can
(and will) focus on just their own profits and power? That's why Standard Oil
was broken up, and Microsoft is dangerously close to that position in the "new
oil" that the US possibly relies on even more than on real oil.
They've shown to be ruthless and would punish their likes in an instant if
*they* were the ones calling the shots instead of the court, no consideration
would be given to "innocent" grunt workers.
You give them the position *and* the signal that they can do whatever they
want, and they *will* use it and you *will* be governed by them, whether or
not in theory Washington D.C. still is in power.
 
>>A[p]art from the obvious slowness of the judicial system, government and
>>politics (how long do you guess the "extreme freedom to make a buck" and
>>pro-MS lobby have held up actions?), there is nothing in the law that says
>>this adagium. Should a murderer not be tried because the police couldn't
>>find him in a month. Or if his victim hasn't died yet after having been
>>poisoned with a slow yet lethal substance?
>We're not dealing with murderers and poison.

A human murderer murders humans.
A corporate murderer murders corporations.
Microsoft is truly a corporate murderer.

>Microsoft is not currently residing in a holding cell, either.

No, they're out on bail in this case (the overturning of the constraining
order over W98 is in effect letting them out of the holding cell while being
tried). But in the Java case, they're definitely in the holding cell.
 
>>>The fact that it had to "find a fact" to now start
>>>applying laws to Microsoft demonstrates that the government had no
>>>problem with what MS was doing in the past.
>>Rubbish, and you know it.
>If I knew it to be rubbish then I wouldn't have stated it.

There's always the question of being aware of things and trying appeasement
before waging an all-out war that costs the taxpayers a lot of money (always
consideration nr.1 to self-serving US people, it would seem).
Would you have wanted the British not to fight the Germans after becoming
aware of the problem and unsuccesfully trying appeasement?
Would you have wanted the US not to fight in WW2 at great costs?
"Hey man, you waited to long, so just let them have what they violently and
illegally made their own"
And you speak of justice??
 
>>Like I said, the government can do no good. If they bud in (too) soon,
>>they get fried, but when they stay back in the hope (according to 
>>right-wingers the "knowledge" ofcourse) that "the market" will handle it 
>>(yeah, monopolies sure tend to break themselves up...) and finally decide
>>it doesn't, they haven't stepped in right away and therefore have 
>>forfeited their right to interfere. Yeah, right.
>The government can literally do whatever it wants.

Rubbish. There are many more checks on them than on MS, and you're advocating
that even those checks that are in place for MS should be ignored (since after
flagging a checkpoint, you should execute some response and you don't want the
response).

>The right thing to do is a different matter entirely.

So have your representative change the law to "any US corp can do whatever the
hell it pleases (especially if it means it dominates other countries)".
That would be a whole lot more ethical and "just" than the road chosen by MS,
trying to lobby the DOJ out of budget because they have the gall to come after
them, the holy MS.

>>The laws in question are older than Gates and Ballmer together.
>The charges are quite recent, however, compared to the time the actions
>were perpetrated.

Rubbish. The charges have been brought immediately. Just because the courts
take so long (partly, like someone else already stated and you ofcourse
ignored, because of all the stays the MS lawyers have been succesfully trying
to get in order to try to get a fait accompli so that people like you can say
"this punishment will not undo this").

>>>>In that case, there are at least two meanings for the word "government".
>>>>One is "the way this country is run and how power is divided", the other
>>>>is "the day to day administration and legislature".
>>>>The latter can break its own rules and be brought to justice for it by
>>>>part of the former (of course, it can easily change the law later).
>>>That's what checks and balances are all about, if I'm reading you
>>>correctly, but that has little to do with what is occurring here.  This
>>>also doesn't change the fact that the judicial system shares
>>>theoretically 1/3 of the governing ability of the US, and is therefore,
>>>just as much a part of the government as any of the other branches.
>>You're just trying to redefine the judicial system as part of the
>>government.
>Perhaps you are using the word "government" differently. What, precisely, 
>do you mean by "government".  To me it is the totality of the three 
>branches.

I already explained that above, and in your reaction you did differntiate
between the judicial system and "the government": you said "[it] is [] as much
a part of the government as [] the other branches".
IOW, it's not the same.
 
>>If it were that way, there would have been no need to have a government
>>(Justice Department) attorney present a case before a judge; MS would just
>>have been convicted.
>The branches of the government have a rigid system of checks and balances
>preventing such "justice by decree" from happening.

That's what I said.
IOW, this lawsuit is not tried by "the government".
It's brought by the government, and tried by the impartial justice system.
So stop trying to act as if it's the bad old govermint attacking poor old MS
on some bogus claim.
 
>>They are related, by accident, but not at all the same.
>>The courts are only (*only*) concerned with law enforcement. What's in the
>>law is irrelevant until at least the verdict (if a verdict may be given 
>>that addresses the concerns of the law itself, then it may come into it at 
>>that point).
>The court is as concerned with upholding the spirit of the laws as it is
>with upholding the letter of the laws, therefore, the laws themselves are
>quite a relevant concern.

The spirit of the laws, when determining guilt, only come into it when the law
itself isn't clear, when it's ambigous. Only then will a case find itself to
the Supreme Court, and there it will be decided what the intent of the law
was, thereby establishing jurisprudence.
In lower courts, the spirit of the law _may_ come into it when it's time for
the verdict (the punishment!), not when deciding guilt.

>>What is to be put *into* the law is upto the government, your
>>representatives.
>Ah.. so you mean the legislature when you refer to "government"?

I'd already explained that. It would come in handy if you would actually read
what I wrote.
 
>>>Yes, but in the case of murder, the only person punished is the
>>>murderer.
>>His/her mother/father loses a son/daughter.
>>His/her brother/sister loses a brother/sister.
>>His/her wife/husband loses a husband/wife.
>>His/her child(ren) lose(s a) father/mother.
>>etc.

No answer, so I take it you agree that more people than the perpetrator get to
be punished for his/her crime.

>>>In the case of Microsoft, many people will be punished for
>>>the transgressions of the few.  This is not just.
>>Apart from the debatable innocence of a lot of MS employees:
>Debatable innocence??  You're carrying this a bit too far.

No I'm not. Like you yourself gave an example of a friend, plenty of people
fully knew what kind of a company they went to work for and did it anyway.
Obviously the money (or other benefits) must have been interesting enough to
offset any disadvantages (working for a low-ethics company) and risks (the
company getting nailed _and_ they suffering any consequences because of it).
And they can still go to some other company, there's plenty of need of IT
people. Maybe they are (still) confident they will win, or maybe they take a
positive view that MS will come out of it being nailed for the better.
 
>>Is it just that the company will get away with *punishing* a lot of
>>companies and people *without* so much as a trial?
>Heretofore the government has let them do so.

And you did too. Not a peep. But when the gov says "this is it, now it's
enough, we tried to ask you nicely but you said 'screw you'", you are up in
arms.
Very consistent, very just.
 
>>Is it just that they have made a lot of money by riding the wave of crime?
>The government is currently in the process of determining if any crimes 
>were committed.

AFAIK, the 'findings of fact' were the determination of guilt and now the
'findings of law' will follow to determine the actions to be taken.
The verdict will only summarize those together.

>>Is it just that there will be no stopping the company after such a no
>>punishment decision?
>Prevention is a better alternative to punishment.

The illegal actions cannot be prevented anymore, they have already been
perpetrated. They must be punished.
Of course, just punishing may not be enough to prevent repetition (and MS
advocates used to argue that the $1 million fine per day that MS might have
had to pay earlier would be "a small price for the money and power the fined

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ivaes@hr.nl                                       16-Nov-99 10:28:18
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 10:39:06
Subj: (2/2) Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

actions would bring MS", so even your feared fine may not prevent it), so I
guess prevention _will_ come into it.
But at the very least, the benefits the offender has enjoyed because of its
offense must be taken away.
If you steal and are caught, you're not just (trying to be) prevented of doing
it again, you lose the money too. I don't see why MS should be treated
differently and be allowed to keep the money.
 
>Again the paranoia.  Why would MS have any interest in governing the US? 
>It's too expensive and would really hurt their profit margin for very 
>little gain.

Power. Gates hasn't been that interested in money, it's all about power.
If he has one quality, it's that he's willing to forfeit short-term profit and
money to reel in long-term power. Witness the near-giveaway of Windows with
DOS, of Office with Windows and the real giveaway of Internet Explorer.
That hurt their profit margin a lot more at the time.
And how can you say "it's too expensive" to govern the US when you also say
"the government can do anything it pleases"? At least the present government
has been chosen and is _trying_ to act for the good of the country, not for
their own power and bottom line. A company could extort all kinds of profit
out of the country, according to your "can do anything", so it might be
expensive but many times more profitable.
 
>>>>People losing their jobs should complain to Gates, Ballmer, Silverberg,
>>>>Maples, etc.
>>>"Do it to us" should mean "stop this from happening again," not "hurt
>>>us".  They can be handcuffed without being handcuffed and beaten.
>>"Stop us or stuff your laws"????? That's what you're saying.
>No, I'm saying "stop this from happening again," not "hurt us".

I'm talking about what MS has been "saying" with their actions, and
interpreting what you are saying *MS was saying*.
I know that *you* are saying "stop this from happening", but *MS* has been
saying "stop us or sod off".
The "us" in there always was MS, not the US people.

>They can be handcuffed without being handcuffed and beaten.

You've said it so many times, I guess you have a fool-proof plan for doing
this. Let's all hear it then.

>>*They* decide what they do. Just because the opportunity is there, doesn't
>>mean you're forced to do something. *They* are in the position of stopping
>>"this" from happening again, and they keep showing that they *don't want
>>to stop it*. That is exactly what is saying "nail us or sod off".
>The government can prevent them from executing monopoly control on the
>market without "punishing" MS.

A) No.
B) MS *have* already done that, so the US Laws say they *must* be punished.
C) Exactly the anti-trust laws were the way the government has tried to 
   prevent companies from executing monopoly control. If you take the 
   sanctions away from them, then you are saying they cannot try the 
   prevention.

>>Too bad the government just cannot sod off.
>>They only have themselves to blame. I am sorry for all those at MS that 
>>must suffer the consequences innocently (a lot less than you're implying, 
>>I'm sure), but if they (really) wanted to prevent that (and not just roll 
>>in dough and feel triumphant because they squashed another upstart with 
>>real innovation), they should have organised a mutiny.
>That is too laughable to even earn a response (other than this one).

I guess you adhere to the school of thought that says "orders are orders, no
matter what they are".
And I thought US people believed in the self-determination of human
individuals and accompanying responsibility...
 
>>Punishing them may mean being broken up in such a manner that competition
>>is restored, or otherwise all participants have equal chances.
>I would view that as prevention, not punishment. 

I have no problem with that. I can view your "prevention" as (part of) my
"punishment", but you seem to have a problem with my "punishment" as part of
your "prevention".

>Punishment would be deliberately disadvantaging them with respect to 
>competitors.

Why not? They've used illegal tactics to advantage themselves with respect to
competitors. Doing nothing with the advantageous position of MS is only
rewarding them and prohibits free competition and therefore doesn't prevent it
from happening again because it only sustains what has already been happening. 


>>OTOH, they might also be forced to pay millions (just a fraction of what
>>they extorted from the biz) which may eg. be used to finance upstarts of
>>keep suffering competitors in business (and *don't complain about them
>>getting money, because *they too* have innocent janitors that are the
>>first to go when monopolist bully MS, as they themselves said, "smile
>>while we pull the trigger"; ah, poor MS).
>And who decides exactly which companies receive this "aide"?

I don't know, that's a practical matter. The ministry of economical affairs?

>How is that fair to the companies that don't receive said "aide"?  It's 
>still playing favorites and is ultimately destructive.

It's just as fair as all other kinds of fincancial aids like job programs,
attracting high-wages companies, ....
It's not playing favourites if you use it to offset disadvantages. I didn't
say "finance upstarts" for nothing. They are at a great disadvantage against
behemoths who've already sewn up the market and shut out newcomers.
Even your beloved "innocent employees" of MS might start their own companies
with their ideas and inject some real innovation into the biz again. Or do you
think they are innocent and mindless drones?

>>>Perhaps I just have more sympathy for working class folks.
>>I have too. There's a lot more working class folks at non-MS companies 
>>than at MS, and they have a lot tougher job (or a lot less jobs!) with un
>>unpunished MS.
>>You're reasoning "I don't want to spend this dime" even though spending it
>>will bring you ten bucks.
>How many more jobs are riding on the assumption that they will be
>supporting MS products in the future?

MS products aren't going away, and when things change the education companies
will have a ball.
If there's more diversity among products, more people will be needed to
support it (which is used as a cost argument for "standardising") and more
jobs will be available.
You seem to be stuck into some kind of MS vision by assuming many more jobs
are riding on the assumption. I think you're very wrong.

>For a comparison, how many jobs were riding on supporting Caldera's DOS 
>when it was disadvantaged?

Disadvantaged? You mean pushed out of the market by MS. The actions we
shouldn't be punishing according to you. That's what I said, that "the MS way"
has cost jobs, and you want to perpetuate it.
 
>>>If it were my job on the line, this angry mob style of justice would 
>>>prompt me to countersue the government.
>>Selfcentered. We're talking on a society-wide scale here. Should all of
>>society (and not just US!) suffer because you happened to have taken a job
>>"innocently" at a company that "pulls the trigger" on other companies 
>>"while smiling"?
>It's very amusing how you appropriate guilt to MS employees.

By definition, the guilt for MS's actions lies with MS employees. The only
part where you may be right to some extent is which employees those were, but
alas the law cannot make that distinction for the company, so it has to do
that itself.
Why haven't you said onec you hated those in charge at MS for putting their
employees in such a position?
 
>> Just countersue the government and prove me right again.
>Sorry, but I am a guilty employee of a different behemoth monopolist (IBM).

And I used to hate that at least as much. IBM has learned a lot though, and
that was because of it being under fire from the government.
MS, however, hasn't learnt one bit yet from being under fire; on the contrary,
they just take it to more extremes. There comes a point where enough is enough
and the time of learning yourself is over. IBM didn't reach that, MS has.
 
>>It's always the damned government. "I just wished there were anarchy"
>>(until it meant you not getting any roads built for you, or no well-fare
>>when you've been made redundant, or the "russkis" had come barging into 
>>the door because there wasn't a government to stop them).
>>There are rules in a society, for better *and* for worse. What's better 
>>for an individual is often worse for the rest.
>>Live with it or go live on Mars.
>You've not demonstrated how punishing MS would be beneficial.  The US has

Yes I have.
It will show them that they cannot do all they want.
It will show them and the people that the laws should be abided and
perpetrators *will* be caught.
I've also (first) not ruled out that part of the punishment should be actions
that will prevent the illegal actions from continuing and being repeated and
(later) have said that those actions *should* be a part of any punishment.
And the fact remains that a punishment need not be beneficial other than
showing that you will not be able to enjoy the fruits of illegal actions.

>nearly always favored the rights of the individual over that of the larger
>group.  Nazis are allowed to conduct peaceful public speeches.  The courts
>would rather let a guilty man go free than convict an innocent man.
>Demonstrations of this fact occur throughout US history.

Blahblahblah.
This is not about an individual and it's not some"body" innocent either.
There should be no punishment for someone being found innocent. There should
be for someone guilty. You can argue all you want about the beneficiality of
it, but someone found guilty must be punished in some way. Getting a reward
should be reserved for those behaving (more than) well.

-- 
Illya Vaes   (ivaes@hr.nl)        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385           Not speaking for anyone but myself

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 16-Nov-99 10:17:16
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 10:39:06
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <800edq$p65$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Curtis Bass writes:
>
>>> Mike Timbol wrote:
>
>>>> I wrote:
>
>>>>> Mike Timbol wrote:
>
>>>>>> I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.
>
>>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.
>
>>>> It's quite relevant.  It demonstrates that I am able to read
>>>> the file.
>
>>> I can read the file as well, Mike.  Does that prove that I ran
>>> WinZip?
>
>> For the record, the file in question is JAVAINUF.EXE, the one Dave made
>> such a big deal over, saying, "WinZip didn't read *MY* copy of
>> JAVAINUF.EXE" (emphasis mine).
>
>For the record, the file in question is classes.zip, Curtis.  See the
>second and second last lines of the first quotation above.  Having
>more reading comprehension problems?

You're the one with the comprehension problem, Dave.  The file in 
question is javainuf.exe, which contains classes.zip.

>> Dave repeated, over and over, to both Marty and myself, that WinZip
>> did not extract the contents of Dave's JAVAINUF.EXE copy.
>> Later, we all learn that Dave's copy, indeed, would have choked
>> WinZip because it was, now hang on, ***CORRUPTED!!!***
>> Yet here, referring to the exact same file,
>
>I'm referring to classes.zip, Curtis.  So is Timbol.  

You, Dave, are full of shit.  Once again, you misinterpret what I write
and insist that your misinterpretation is correct.  As usual, you
are wrong.

     - Mike


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 16-Nov-99 10:24:04
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 10:39:06
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <8086if$ipp$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Curtis Bass writes:
>
>> I am not claiming otherwise, Dave. All I am claiming is that "the file"
>> in the context of the exchange segment in question does indeed refer to
>> JAVAINUF.EXE, and not classes.zip.
>
>I suggest you reread the material you snipped, Curtis:
>
>MT] I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>MT] classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>MT] so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>MT] The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>MT] AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.
>
>> Ask Mike what he meant when he said, "It proves I can read the file."
>
>That's not in the quotation above to which I was responding, Curtis.
>
>> Did he mean JAVAINUF.EXE (which you claimed couldn't be read, which is
>> to say, have its contents extracted, without running OS/2, as my
>> restored context fully reveals)? Or classes.zip?
>
>Reread the material you snipped, Curtis:
>
>MT] I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>MT] classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>MT] so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>MT] The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>MT] AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.
>
>> Mike, if you are reading this, what did you mean?
>
>He meant what he wrote, Curtis.  Why ignore the written evidence?

I did mean what I wrote, and what I wrote is that I can read the
file in question, which is javainuf.exe.  That's what the written
evidence indicates.  The only reason you are confused is that you
are, once again, taking statements out of context.

Haven't you learned your lesson by now?

     - Mike



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 16-Nov-99 10:31:16
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 10:39:06
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <7vu88l$q4m$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>> Curtis Bass writes:
>
>>>>>>>> Take another look at the URL:
>>>>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
>
>>>>>>> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.
>
>>>>>> Nor does it need to.
>
>>>>> On the contrary, it does.
>
>>>> Explain why.
>
>>> Because if it did, you'd get an error, perhaps not identical to the
>>> one InfoZip generated, but an error nonetheless.
>
>> So you're claiming that your copy of javainuf.exe, which you claimed
>> to have downloaded from IBM's web site, is corrupt, or damaged in
>> some other way,
>
>I'm claiming the file is incomplete, Mike.
>
>> but you did not realize it at first?
>
>Netscape issued no error message, Mike.  All the other files that were
>downloaded were fine.  Given that there are two runtime environments
>to choose from, and the fact that I chose to install the one without
>unicode fonts, I had no reason to extract javainuf.exe until you
>claimed that you looked at its contents.

In fact, even *after* I told you that I looked at its contents, you
*still* did not bother to extract the contents of javainuf.exe.  Isn't 
that correct?  Because, if you had, you would have realized that your 
copy of the file was incomplete.

In fact, I told you that I used WinZip as my extraction tool.  You
lied when you told me you used OS/2 since, in fact, you did not
even bother to extract the contents of the file in question.  You
erroneously assumed that it would behave in a similar manner as
the file you did extract.

>> Is that the way you want to explain your mistake?
>
>It's a fact that the file download was incomplete, Mike.  It's also a
>fact that there was no indication of that until Marty stated that he
>was able to unzip the file with InfoZip.  I at least came to the
>correct conclusion that the file was to blame, so I downloaded another
>copy.  

No, Dave, you came to the incorrect conclusion that I must have been
running OS/2 to extract the contents of the file.  You came to the 
incorrect conclusion that the file's compression format was not
portable, since InfoZip could not read *your* copy.

>Amazing that people jumped to the erroneous conclusion that InfoZip was
>somehow less capable at unzipping the file than WinZip, and that it makes
>OS/2 look bad.  But I'm accustomed to seeing such erroneous conclusions
>from people in this newsgroup.

So tell me, would your conclusion that I must have been running OS/2
be one of these "erroneous conclusions"?

     - Mike


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         16-Nov-99 10:37:16
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 10:39:06
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>> Curtis Bass writes:

>>>> Mike Timbol wrote:

>>>>> I wrote:

>>>>>> Mike Timbol wrote:

>>>>>>> I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>>>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>>>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.

>>>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.

>>>>> It's quite relevant.  It demonstrates that I am able to read
>>>>> the file.

>>>> I can read the file as well, Mike.  Does that prove that I ran
>>>> WinZip?

>>> For the record, the file in question is JAVAINUF.EXE, the one Dave made
>>> such a big deal over, saying, "WinZip didn't read *MY* copy of
>>> JAVAINUF.EXE" (emphasis mine).

>> For the record, the file in question is classes.zip, Curtis.  See the
>> second and second last lines of the first quotation above.  Having
>> more reading comprehension problems?

> You're the one with the comprehension problem, Dave.

Obviously not, Mike.

> The file in question is javainuf.exe, which contains classes.zip.

Illogical, Mike.  You wrote "I was able to read the file" and then
went on to reference what you read "The first file in classes.zip".
Remember, you were referring to classes.zip long before you ever
mentioned javainuf.exe; I had to coax that top-level filename out
of you.

>>> Dave repeated, over and over, to both Marty and myself, that WinZip
>>> did not extract the contents of Dave's JAVAINUF.EXE copy.
>>> Later, we all learn that Dave's copy, indeed, would have choked
>>> WinZip because it was, now hang on, ***CORRUPTED!!!***
>>> Yet here, referring to the exact same file,

>> I'm referring to classes.zip, Curtis.  So is Timbol.  

> You, Dave, are full of shit.

Balderdash, Mike.  See above for why.

> Once again, you misinterpret what I write and insist that your
> misinterpretation is correct.

There is no misinterpretation on my part, Mike.  Read what you wrote.

> As usual, you are wrong.

Balderdash, Mike.  See above for why.  You're just trying to save
face again.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         16-Nov-99 10:40:13
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 10:39:06
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>> Curtis Bass writes:

>>> I am not claiming otherwise, Dave. All I am claiming is that "the file"
>>> in the context of the exchange segment in question does indeed refer to
>>> JAVAINUF.EXE, and not classes.zip.

>> I suggest you reread the material you snipped, Curtis:
>>
>> MT] I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>> MT] classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>> MT] so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>> MT] The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>> MT] AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.

>>> Ask Mike what he meant when he said, "It proves I can read the file."

>> That's not in the quotation above to which I was responding, Curtis.

>>> Did he mean JAVAINUF.EXE (which you claimed couldn't be read, which is
>>> to say, have its contents extracted, without running OS/2, as my
>>> restored context fully reveals)? Or classes.zip?

>> Reread the material you snipped, Curtis:
>>
>> MT] I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>> MT] classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>> MT] so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>> MT] The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>> MT] AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.

>>> Mike, if you are reading this, what did you mean?

>> He meant what he wrote, Curtis.  Why ignore the written evidence?

> I did mean what I wrote,

Good.  Now you can't argue that you didn't mean what you wrote.

> and what I wrote is that I can read the file in question, which is
> javainuf.exe.

Illogical, Mike.  You wrote "I was able to read the file" and then
went on to reference what you read "The first file in classes.zip".
Remember, you were referring to classes.zip long before you ever
mentioned javainuf.exe; I had to coax that top-level filename out
of you.

> That's what the written evidence indicates.

Incorrect, Mike.  See above for why.

> The only reason you are confused is that you are, once again,
> taking statements out of context.

Incorrect, Mike.  See above for why.

> Haven't you learned your lesson by now?

How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't learned his lesson by now.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         16-Nov-99 10:47:28
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 10:39:06
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>> Curtis Bass writes:

>>>>>>>>> Take another look at the URL:
>>>>>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>>>>>>>> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

>>>>>>> Nor does it need to.

>>>>>> On the contrary, it does.

>>>>> Explain why.

>>>> Because if it did, you'd get an error, perhaps not identical to the
>>>> one InfoZip generated, but an error nonetheless.

>>> So you're claiming that your copy of javainuf.exe, which you claimed
>>> to have downloaded from IBM's web site, is corrupt, or damaged in
>>> some other way,

>> I'm claiming the file is incomplete, Mike.

>>> but you did not realize it at first?

>> Netscape issued no error message, Mike.  All the other files that were
>> downloaded were fine.  Given that there are two runtime environments
>> to choose from, and the fact that I chose to install the one without
>> unicode fonts, I had no reason to extract javainuf.exe until you
>> claimed that you looked at its contents.

> In fact, even *after* I told you that I looked at its contents, you
> *still* did not bother to extract the contents of javainuf.exe.

You hadn't even told me the name of the top-level file at that time,
Mike.

> Isn't that correct?

You hadn't even told me the name of the top-level file at that time,
Mike.

> Because, if you had, you would have realized that your 
> copy of the file was incomplete.

You hadn't even told me the name of the top-level file at that time,
Mike.

> In fact, I told you that I used WinZip as my extraction tool.

Seems like a reasonable tool to use on a zip file like classes.zip,
Mike.

> You lied when you told me you used OS/2

Balderdash, Mike.

> since, in fact, you did not even bother to extract the contents of
> the file in question.

On the contrary, Mike, I already had classes.zip from the other
runtime environemtn.

> You erroneously assumed that it would behave in a similar manner as
> the file you did extract.

WinZip can't make the proper bytes magically appear, Mike.

>>> Is that the way you want to explain your mistake?

>> It's a fact that the file download was incomplete, Mike.  It's also a
>> fact that there was no indication of that until Marty stated that he
>> was able to unzip the file with InfoZip.  I at least came to the
>> correct conclusion that the file was to blame, so I downloaded another
>> copy.  

> No, Dave, you came to the incorrect conclusion that I must have been
> running OS/2 to extract the contents of the file.

If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
choices do you have, Mike?

> You came to the incorrect conclusion that the file's compression format
> was not portable, since InfoZip could not read *your* copy.

On what basis do you make that unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Mike?

>> Amazing that people jumped to the erroneous conclusion that InfoZip was
>> somehow less capable at unzipping the file than WinZip, and that it makes
>> OS/2 look bad.  But I'm accustomed to seeing such erroneous conclusions
>> from people in this newsgroup.

> So tell me, would your conclusion that I must have been running OS/2
> be one of these "erroneous conclusions"?

If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
choices do you have, Mike?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           16-Nov-99 07:43:13
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 10:39:07
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <383292e2.41907511@news.borg.com>, on 11/15/99 at 05:01 AM,
   jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt) said:

> SHHHHHH! Don't tell William this. If he were to suddenly get a clue, and
> actually avail himself of the services of all of those VARs, that would
> deprive the larger VARs of their suckers.... er... customers like
> William who stupidly buys items that he doesn't even want whereas we
> receive and pay for only that which we desire

You lemmings sure cannot read. As I have explained at least four times,
when bidding for large corporate or public body purchases, the bid
specifications require name brand hardware in many instances. Those for
public agencies most frequently require any substitution for the named
brand or brands be from companies with D&B ratings, minimum net worth,
etc. They also require that the hardware be accompanied by a
MANUFACTURER's warranty.

If one assembles his or her own hardware, he or she becomes the
manufacturer for bid purposes and must fulfill the net worth requirements
via certified financial statements, letter of credit, or bond from a NY
licensed bonding firm. The local retailer doesn't become close to meeting
those requirements.

The bids frequently require a contract from a national service company
such as XEROX, IBM, Compaq, etc. which will provide on-site service for 2,
3 or even longer years. These companies will not touch locally assembled
machines.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            16-Nov-99 17:27:21
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 20:09:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:49:44, jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt) 
wrote:

> >jansens_at_ibm_dot_net
> >I haven't been following the thread, and it's just pure 
> >luck my iddy biddy eye fell on this
> 
> Isn't it interesting that, for "some" reason, Karel *never* seems to
> be "following" any of the numerous threads in which Tholen is arguing
> his idiocy with others?
> 
No, it's not really.
I tend to avoid those threads, given the fact that I'm *allways* 
demanded to take sides. I don't follow many of the threads you're 
involved either, but for totally different reasons.

> And yet Karel The Obviously Clueless Newbie felt compelled to enter
> the newsgroup, and defend Tholen against what he then dismissed as
> "unfair" responses to such idiocy. In response to that, a number of
> people, including even Brad Wardell, informed Karel of why people say
> the things that they say about, and to, Tholen. (Also, Karel
> mysteriously and inexplicably "lost" the digest of Tholen quotes I
> provided, after making a bogus, unproven claim that they had been
> doctored. Competency is obviously not his forte).
> 
I never mentioned the words "mysterious" or "inexplicable". IIRC, the 
link you provided to deja didn't work. And could you please point out 
where I accused you of doctoring your digest?

> Here it is weeks later, and he still hasn't a clue why, even after
> more and more people have been explaining it to him, and he's still
> attempting to justify/excuse the absurd nonsense that Tholen posts in
> this newsgroup. Is this guy slow, or what?
> 
Well, I wrote the quote above 2 weeks ago, it sure took you some time 
to come up with an answer. I know it's been pointed out to you that 
you might be having reading comprehension problems, but this is really
getting very serious. Have you ever considered getting help for your 
problem?

> BTW: This is typical of "Tholen supporters". They're not particularly
> swift. Check out Bennie Nelson's "Tholen detractors are unskilled at
> logic" and "emotionally blocked" series of posts for some of the most
> cluelessly naive pontificating this newsgroup has ever seen.

AFAIK, you're the only one who keeps saying that. Yet you seem to 
think that "the newsgroup" shares your opinion. Are you playing that 
game "If I shout hard enough, it must be true" again?

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 16-Nov-99 17:46:26
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 20:09:23
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <80rcaq$3ot$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>> Curtis Bass writes:
>
>>> Reread the material you snipped, Curtis:
>>>
>>> MT] I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>>> MT] classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>> MT] so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>> MT] The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>>> MT] AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.
>
>>>> Mike, if you are reading this, what did you mean?
>
>>> He meant what he wrote, Curtis.  Why ignore the written evidence?
>
>> I did mean what I wrote, and what I wrote is that I can read the file 
>> in question, which is javainuf.exe.
>
>Illogical, Mike.  You wrote "I was able to read the file" and then
>went on to reference what you read "The first file in classes.zip".

You're leaving out the fact that I gave you several statistics about
classes.zip itself, which I obtained by reading the file javainuf.exe.
The point was to demonstrate that WinZip can read javainuf.exe in a
meaninful fashion (unlike LIST, which you keep comparing it to).

I might, for example, mention to you that I am able to read a particular
book, then go on to cite information about the first chapter within
that book.

>Remember, you were referring to classes.zip long before you ever
>mentioned javainuf.exe; I had to coax that top-level filename out
>of you.

And, when I gave you the top level filename, that's the file we've been
talking about.  Tell me, Dave, what's the most recent file I referred
to *before* the paragraph you mention?  Yes, it's javainuf.exe.

>> That's what the written evidence indicates.  The only reason you are 
>> confused is that you are, once again, taking statements out of context.
>
>Incorrect, Mike.  See above for why.

The above demonstrates exactly what I claimed -- that you're taking
the statements out of context.  You claim that I'm talking about a 
file that I refer to *later* in the paragraph, and not the file
that I refer to *earlier* in the conversation.  Chronology, Dave.
Learn it.

>> Haven't you learned your lesson by now?
>
>How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't learned his lesson by now.

Amusingly, here you are trying to claim that the subject of *my* sentence
is what *you* misinterpreted it to be.  Tsk, tsk.

     - Mike




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: uno@40th.com                                      16-Nov-99 18:05:01
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 20:09:23
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com)

Bob Germer? (bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com?) wrote (Tue, 16 Nov 1999 07:52:21
-0500):
>I cited two very significant proofs at the end of the message you quoted.

Basically then, your reason to use OS2 if you were starting
today is for the DOS support.

>>  http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/openbench1.html
>That will not prove a thing other than the software was tweaked to favor MS

I see you didn't read it, Bob.  The whole point of that story was
to document how it wasn't tweaked to favor MS.  It shows, given the
exact same hardware, NT Server was generally 100% faster (at least)
than linux, acting as a web server.

>Which is much superior and faster no matter how fast your hard disks.
>Thank you for proving my point.

Well, no, it isn't.  Better to shuffle off old code when
the system is not busy than to wait to shuffle it off when
the memory is needed (and so have to wait for the memory
to become available).

<repeated a few times...>


Yes, great DOS emulation is a very good reason to use OS2.
You have met the challenge, Bob, but only for that reason.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               16-Nov-99 13:23:13
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 20:09:23
Subj: Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES 

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

hunters@sapphire.indstate.edu wrote:
> 
> In article <38316471.0@nntp2.borg.com>,
>   "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com> wrote:
> 
> > Well, let's suppose that's true (I, frankly, don't believe it, but,
> > hey, I've been known to be wrong!).  You're saying that you can now
> > run, under old-fashioned OS/2, a more modern product by a competitor.
> 
> Actually, there is no real technical reason that IBM couldn't do this.
> They have the Win95 source*, and with some minor changes and a
> recompile, it could run in a VDM. I can almost start Win95 (safe-mode)
> in a VDM now, (It dies on loading the video driver) so I don't see it
> as too far-fetched that, with the source, IBM could make it work. You'd
> still have the 512MB problem under Warp4 tho...

Actually it would take some fairly major revamping to the VDM in order
to get Win9x running in an OS/2 session.  OS/2's VDM would have to be
able to emulate A20 address line manipulation and other IOPL types of
instructions (other than basic port manipulations which it already
handles).  Basically if it were robust enough to run Win9x inside of
OS/2 it would likely also be robust enough to run Linux inside of OS/2. 
I think the current VDM is a far cry from this, and I highly doubt that
IBM has devoted the significant funds necessary to bring it up to speed.
 
- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          16-Nov-99 18:47:03
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 20:09:23
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

>On <38324be5.2062989@news.borg.com>, on 11/15/99 at 06:09 PM,
>   jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt) said:
>
>> And yet, you need some twenty-something year old "tech" at Dell to put
>> together computers for your "clients".
>
>> Yep, we're believing every word of this. We sure are.
>
>No, I don't

Yes you do, and you've effectively admitted as much in your preceding
messages.

>and do not do that for smaller accounts who are willing to
>accept hardware we provide. However, for the major clients and contract
>bids, we must use name brands since the bid specifications call for them.
>I have explained this in some detail.
>
>New Jersey has long had a requirement that all public bodies, even local
>zoning boards, etc. buy only from the lowest qualified bidder. Long time
>political cronies in many places manipulated the system to write bids that
>virtually only one manufacturer can meet. This was challenged in Court and
>changes were mandated. However, the Supreme Court of NJ did allow the
>creditworthiness test which is used by the salesmen for IBM, Compaq, etc.
>to rig the bidding to prevent lower cost clones from being bought.

None of this answers the question, why your alleged "clients", who are
so concerned about receiving uninterrupted, professional "support
years down the road" from their "suppliers" such that they've eschewed
local companies and insisted upon dealing *only* with companies like
IBM that have a net worth of $10,000,000, have hired a 65+ years old
local guy to allegedly install and maintain their computers rather
than IBM employees who offer such services.

In fact, the more you describe the alleged reasons WHY your "clients"
have gone with IBM, the more reason you give why it's implausible that
they hired you in lieu of IBM's services.

Yep, we're believing every word of this. We sure are.

BTW, I thought that you had me killfiled. Surely a person who alleges
to have worked on just about every IBM computer ever made has the
competence to setup a kill filter? No? Well, that's undoubtably
because your claims are bogus.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          16-Nov-99 19:06:06
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 20:09:23
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>>Jeff Glatt
>> SHHHHHH! Don't tell William this. If he were to suddenly get a clue, and
>> actually avail himself of the services of all of those VARs, that would
>> deprive the larger VARs of their suckers.... er... customers like
>> William who stupidly buys items that he doesn't even want whereas we
>> receive and pay for only that which we desire

>Boob Germer
>You lemmings sure cannot read.

You phony, 65+ year old alleged computer consultants sure can't
properly setup a kill file.

Why don't you call that 20-something year old tech at Dell who has to
put computers together for you, and ask him if he'll help you figure
out how to get your killfile working (as you claimed that you had)?

>As I have explained at least four times,

Yeah, but how many times have you allegedly kill-filed me now, and
obviously it's not working? Clearly, when you do something, it likely
will not get done right, nor even at all.

>The bids frequently require a contract from a national service company
>such as XEROX, IBM, Compaq, etc. which will provide on-site service for 2,
>3 or even longer years.

And I ask again, if your alleged "clients" have on-site service
contracts with IBM and Compaq because they demand uninterrupted,
professional "support years down the road" from companies with
$10,000,000 net worth rather than local companies, why the hell have
they supposedly hired a 65+ year old local guy to install and maintain
their computers?

Indeed, they have not.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          16-Nov-99 18:57:24
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 20:09:23
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>> >> >>>Bob Germer
>> >> >>>Since I had no desire to run DOS or Windows I had no desire to pay
for
>> >> >>>same. But MicroSoft via its per processor licensing policy with
virtually
>> >> >>>every PC manufacturer made me pay for worthless crap.
  
>> >> >>Jeff Glatt
>> >> >>That's because you're an incompetent consumer. I routinely buy
>> >> >>computers without any OS installed. (I always insist upon installing
>> >> >>the OS myself). You simply don't know how to do this.
  
>> >> >William Sonna
>> >> >I routinely buy them, too. But I'm sick of no-name cheapos.
>  
>> >> I do not buy junk. All of my computers have things such as Adaptec
>> >> SCSI controllers, Tyan motherboards, Seagate HDs, Intel CPUs, etc.
 
>> >> Of course, when you buy good stuff, you can negotiate better what you
>> >> want.
 
>> >> >So tell 
>> >> >me, which major manufacturer will sell you a computer without Windows?
>> >> >All I've ever heard is "we don't sell them that way".
>> >>  
>> >> Ah, I see your problem. You're trying to buy a Humvee from Ford. Big,
>> >> assembly line driven companies do not usually deal with custom
>> >> requests. They typically offer a small set of pre-assembled "options",
>> >> and that's it.
  
>> >Translation: They didn't used to
 
>> How would you know what VARs did and didn't do? You obviously don't
>> even know about the existence of them.
 
>> >and Jeff is not sure if they do 
>> >nowdays or not.
 
>> No, I'm the one who is knowledgeable about, and aware of, the services
>> that VARs offer. You're the helpless, ignorant, clueless consumer who
>> can't even manage to locate a copy of Computer Shopper, let alone
>> understand what its contents are.
 
>Computer Shopper =  Large type, glossy ads, superficial reviews and 
>short sentences.

hahahahahah!!! Glossy ads?? Apparently, you've either never read the
magazine (which is likely since you obviously don't know what a VAR
is), or you never read past the first 30 pages or so.

Typically ignorant, uninformed opinion from an OS/2 Zealot.

>Stands to reason you'd be a "Computer Shopper" kind of guy.  You 
>probably think its an engineering journal.

That appears to be the problem -- William is hiring electrical
engineers to build his Windows-loaded PCs. Actually, being that
William is so utterly clueless about the PC market, he's probably
being bilked by someone who realizes this and has given him false
credentials in order to charge him for YET ANOTHER THING THAT WILLIAM
DOESN'T WANT OR NEED BUT IS PAYING FOR REGARDLESS BECAUSE HE'S TOO
STUPID AND INCOMPETENT TO PURCHASE ONLY WHAT HE WANTS, as we otherwise
do.

These OS/2 Zealots are an extremely helpless bunch. They can't seem to
do anything, and by their own admission, aren't able to get what they
want and need even though many more competent and knowledgeable people
do so, and inform the helpless zealots how it's done.

Typical. No wonder why they're IBM customers, and customers that even
IBM has told to sod off.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          16-Nov-99 19:22:13
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 20:09:24
Subj: Re: Windows posting activitiy...

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>William Sonna
>What they fail to grasp is that three months from now, Win '2000 will 
>be out, the verdict will be under appeal, Gates will be raking in the 
>bucks as always, and they will be happily spending their money new 
>hardware and software to run on the OS of the future.

Meanwhile, William will *still* be trying to figure out what a VAR is,
and struggling to read Computer Shopper while some "major PC company"
is selling the fool the exact same hardware that he could be buying
for less elsewhere, plus heaping on top of it items that he claims he
doesn't want but is too dumb to figure out how to not buy them

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          16-Nov-99 19:19:13
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 20:09:24
Subj: Re: Tholen's Hypocrisy and Illogic Exposed Once again

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Marty
>Too bad he lacks the courage to respond to you anymore after your having
>utterly humiliated him so many times. 

Yes, among his other obvious flaws is the fact that he is a gutless
coward.

But, it doesn't bother me in the least. Tholen's posts are utter
nonsense. There's no point in replying seriously to them at all, so a
post of his to me would be pointless except to provide me with yet
more of his idiotic, hypocritical tripe to use against him. And I get
PLENTY of such material from his moronic posts to others.

>It's also too bad that all it takes to
>utterly humiliate him is to quote his own conflicting, ignorant words.

It has always been that way. Tholen is NOT an intelligent person. He's
rather dumb, and I suspect that a lot of his behavioral problems stem
from low self-esteem. I've been pointing that out as long as anyone
here (even Joe, who has also been documenting Tholen's dishonesty,
idiocy, hypocrisy, and lack of common sense on a per-message basis).

The *only* people who are "impressed" with Tholen's truly dimwitted
nonsense are OS/2 zealots who have a boner for a niche product, but
otherwise not much sense nor insight. These would be people like Tim
Martian, Phil Caveman, Karel "Tholen is a nice guy" J, Joesph "Help,
I'm locked in a university closet and can't get out" Coughlan, and
Bennie "Tholen's detractors are unskilled at logic and emotionally
blocked" Nelson.

And frankly, a cadre of kooks doesn't amount to anything

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          16-Nov-99 14:40:26
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 20:09:24
Subj: Re: Tholen's Hypocrisy and Illogic Exposed Once again

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
> 
> >Marty
> >Too bad he lacks the courage to respond to you anymore after your having
> >utterly humiliated him so many times.
> 
> Yes, among his other obvious flaws is the fact that he is a gutless
> coward.
> 
> But, it doesn't bother me in the least. Tholen's posts are utter
> nonsense. There's no point in replying seriously to them at all, so a
> post of his to me would be pointless except to provide me with yet
> more of his idiotic, hypocritical tripe to use against him. And I get
> PLENTY of such material from his moronic posts to others.
> 
> >It's also too bad that all it takes to
> >utterly humiliate him is to quote his own conflicting, ignorant words.
> 
> It has always been that way. Tholen is NOT an intelligent person. He's
> rather dumb, and I suspect that a lot of his behavioral problems stem
> from low self-esteem. I've been pointing that out as long as anyone
> here (even Joe, who has also been documenting Tholen's dishonesty,
> idiocy, hypocrisy, and lack of common sense on a per-message basis).
> 
> The *only* people who are "impressed" with Tholen's truly dimwitted
> nonsense are OS/2 zealots who have a boner for a niche product, but
> otherwise not much sense nor insight. These would be people like Tim
> Martian, Phil Caveman, Karel "Tholen is a nice guy" J, Joesph "Help,
> I'm locked in a university closet and can't get out" Coughlan, and
> Bennie "Tholen's detractors are unskilled at logic and emotionally
> blocked" Nelson.
> 
> And frankly, a cadre of kooks doesn't amount to anything

Interesting that we get so much attention from Jeff Glatt.  Despite
your words to the contrary, your many posts prove that this newsgroup,
and the OS/2 supporters who post here amount to something that bugs you.
You haven't been able to get over it, either.

Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: stuartf@datacom.co.nz                             17-Nov-99 10:38:09
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 20:09:24
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Stuart Fox" <stuartf@datacom.co.nz>

"Illya Vaes" <ivaes@hr.nl> wrote in message news:383123C5.82A38CCC@hr.nl...
> Marty wrote:
>
> >>Then again, others went to work for them because they saw so much dough
> >>coming in and were willing to throw away their principles by working for
> >>a company with such low ethics.
> >Please.  I didn't know that when you sign on to work for MS that you had
to
> >discard your conscience as well.  I don't think that was in their
contracts
> >for employment, or in anyone's mind when they signed on.  This view is a
> >bit extreme and unrealistic.
>
> Of course it's not in their contracts. But they cannot have been unaware
of
> the lack of ethics of the company they started to work for, and as you
gave an
> example of a friend, they went and worked for them anyway.
> And as David Raoul Derbes put so eloquently, they got the benefits of the
> companies tactics until now, so why wouldn't they get the disadvantages
etc.
> too? You're saying MS employees should be shielded from the things they
have
> inflicted upon employees of other companies without you stepping up to the
> plate to defend those.

These facts weren't known until the court case.
>
> >The anti-trust laws apply to corporations. Corporations, in the eyes of
the
> >law are effectively their own people. They can be held accountable for
> >crimes and even go bankrupt independently of those people who comprise
> >them. Anti-trust laws have no application to individuals.
>
> In other words, no-one can be held accountable for anti-trust offences,
since
> that would mean individuals would be punished for what "the company" has
done.
> Just toss out all laws governing business then...

If you're an MS worker, beavering away developing Windows 2000 or whatever,
do you have an impact on what contracts your company forces OEM's to sign?
No.  You are there developing Windows, getting paid for it, and don't
actually have any input into how the company does business.  You probably
may not even know (until a high publicity court case comes along).  It's not
like Microsoft is out there burning OS/2 users or something, where you can
make a value judgement pretty quickly.




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Customer of Telecom Internet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: andrew@netneurotic.de                             16-Nov-99 22:49:12
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 20:09:24
Subj: Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES EX

From: andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm)

Diablo <kinghell@earthlink.net> wrote:

> I Here Their Is A Version Of Os/2 Warp 4 That Can Run
> Windows 95 Insted Of Win 3.1 And That People Who
> Have Been Inside IBM Have Actually Seen It Work
> But Can't Be Released Because Microsoft Wont Alow It
> I Would Love It If Some One Could Get A Copy Of It
> And Post It Here Or Give An FTP SITE To Where It
> Is At. 

I don't think that Microsoft would have any legal grounds for stopping
such a product, even if it did exist.

-- 
Fan of Woody Allen
User of MacOS, BeOS, LinuxPPC
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: float@incandescent.firedrake.org                  16-Nov-99 22:00:10
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 20:09:24
Subj: Re: The Microsnot PR Quiz

From: float@incandescent.firedrake.org (void)

In article <matvon-nospam-1611991003290001@bushlab4.life.uiuc.edu>, M. Vaughn
wrote:
>
>Um, I didn't make the comment about MS's name.  Do you *know* what an
>astroturfer is?  Worse yet, are *you* an astroturfer?

Bre*t?  An astroturfer?  I don't think so.

-- 
 Ben

[X] YES! I'm a brain-damaged lemur on crack, and I'd like to
    order your software package for $459.95!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Firedrake Synthesis (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.c...               16-Nov-99 22:58:19
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 20:09:24
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

Message sender: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk

From: David Sutherland <sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk>

On 16 Nov 1999 10:37:33 GMT, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)
wrote:

>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>> Curtis Bass writes:
>
>>>>> Mike Timbol wrote:
>
>>>>>> I wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Mike Timbol wrote:
>
>>>>>>>> I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>>>>>>>> classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>>>>>> so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>>>>>> The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>>>>>>>> AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.
>
>>>>>>> Irrelevant, Mike.
>
>>>>>> It's quite relevant.  It demonstrates that I am able to read
>>>>>> the file.
>
>>>>> I can read the file as well, Mike.  Does that prove that I ran
>>>>> WinZip?
>
>>>> For the record, the file in question is JAVAINUF.EXE, the one Dave made
>>>> such a big deal over, saying, "WinZip didn't read *MY* copy of
>>>> JAVAINUF.EXE" (emphasis mine).
>
>>> For the record, the file in question is classes.zip, Curtis.  See the
>>> second and second last lines of the first quotation above.  Having
>>> more reading comprehension problems?
>
>> You're the one with the comprehension problem, Dave.
>
>Obviously not, Mike.
>

Obviously yes, Tholen.   You arrived at false conclusions and refused
to retract your claims in the face of clear evidence that you were
wrong.  In my book, that makes you not just stupid, but a liar.


>> The file in question is javainuf.exe, which contains classes.zip.
>
>Illogical, Mike.  You wrote "I was able to read the file" and then
>went on to reference what you read "The first file in classes.zip".
>Remember, you were referring to classes.zip long before you ever
>mentioned javainuf.exe; I had to coax that top-level filename out
>of you.
>

Crap, Tholen.   The only person who didn't understand what the subject
of debate was, was you.  and that is because you are incredibly
stupid.

>>>> Dave repeated, over and over, to both Marty and myself, that WinZip
>>>> did not extract the contents of Dave's JAVAINUF.EXE copy.
>>>> Later, we all learn that Dave's copy, indeed, would have choked
>>>> WinZip because it was, now hang on, ***CORRUPTED!!!***
>>>> Yet here, referring to the exact same file,
>
>>> I'm referring to classes.zip, Curtis.  So is Timbol.  
>
>> You, Dave, are full of shit.
>
>Balderdash, Mike.  See above for why.
>

Balderdash, Tholen.  If you weren't such an imbecile you might have
had a chance at comprehending what was being said, but as usual you
are too dim to realise what's gone over your head, and too arrogant to
admit when you are wrong.

>> Once again, you misinterpret what I write and insist that your
>> misinterpretation is correct.
>
>There is no misinterpretation on my part, Mike.  Read what you wrote.
>

You are the one who didn't understand, tholen, just as all your
precious conclusions were based upon a flawed premise.  When you are
proven wrong do you admit and move on.  No, I guess that would take a
lot more guts and honesty than you possess.
  
>> As usual, you are wrong.
>
>Balderdash, Mike.  See above for why.  You're just trying to save
>face again.

How ironic coming from the person who draws false conclusions based
upon a corrupt file and then doesn't have the balls to admit his
error.

Tholen the gibbering idiot proves once again that he is beyond
redemption.


Regards,
David Sutherland
(note **ANTI-SPAM** in reply field)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: (Posted via) Netcom Internet Ltd. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: sctvguy@netcenter.net                             16-Nov-99 18:00:04
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 21:31:09
Subj: Re:  Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Bob Grimes <sctvguy@netcenter.net>

After reading Bob Germer's replies to this thread, I feel that a person
who works with OS/2 and makes his living from it, is a lot more
qualified to "advocate" for the OS than the pudpullers who inhabit this
group just to spew bullshit.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: EarthLink Network, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               16-Nov-99 18:59:24
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 21:31:09
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Karel Jansens wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:49:44, jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)
> wrote:
> 
> AFAIK, you're the only one who keeps saying that. Yet you seem to
> think that "the newsgroup" shares your opinion. Are you playing that
> game "If I shout hard enough, it must be true" again?

Kinda like Tholen "shouting" that I'm playing an infantile game over and over
again without any basis.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               16-Nov-99 19:09:20
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 21:31:09
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Chad Mulligan wrote:
> 
> Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:38316501.B23C75DD@stny.rr.com...
> > Chad Mulligan wrote:
> > >
> > > Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3830CB83.2BC9AD59@stny.rr.com...
> > > > Chad Mulligan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > > > news:3830BF84.D4A81F95@stny.rr.com...
> > > > > > Bob Germer wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On <3KcvOMPOEPq1eeORav0FX3CJHRrw@4ax.com>, on 11/15/99 at 01:30
> AM,
> > > > > > >    Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> said:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Tsk. Tsk.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes, it is a personal attack. Just up your street BTW
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Typical conduct of an Arab terrorist. You can't win a rational
> > > > > > > argument so you attempt to blow others up.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Hmm... judging by the ease and flair with which he wrote out that
> > > > > > racial slur, perhaps he is old and ignorant as his previous
postings 
> > > > > > have implied.
> > > > >
> > > > > Good point, not all terrorists are Arabs.
> > > >
> > > > Another high quality individual I see.  Sad, but not terribly
> > > > surprising.
> > >
> > > I was agreeing with you stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > I suppose you meant that the other way around then, "not all Arabs are
> > terrorists".
> 
> No.  The slur in the statement is that terrorists are automatically Arabs, I
> pointed out that there are terrorists who aren't Arabs.  Being an Arab or
> being called an Arab isn't a slur.

Guess it depends on which group you perceive is the superset.  I perceived it
that there are more terrorists than Arabs, thus saying that not all terrorists
are Arabs still leaves the possibility open that all Arabs are terrorists (but
there are additional terrorists who are not Arabs).

Anyhow, a simple mistake on my part for which I apologize.  I'm glad you agree
with me regarding the idiocy of Bob's slur.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: huffd@nls.net                                     16-Nov-99 23:56:08
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 21:31:09
Subj: I am worried about our future generations...

From: "David D. Huff Jr." <huffd@nls.net>

Every time one of these whiny-ass MicroSloth crusaders writes me
personally and spews forth revisionist history.

The last one claims that IBM helped to setup MicroSloth at the
anti-trust hearings. I thought that was called testimony now they call
it setting someone up.

Part of the letter I received discussed a part of computer history that
happened twenty years ago. And this brash young fellow proceeds to tell
me how I have it all wrong. Piss on you I was here I lived it! It just
hasn't been the same since the trial. All of these weirdos are coming
out of the closet and counter posting or writing direct about
everything. It looks like the devil wants to have his day and his
minions are doing their best to put on a full court press. But dang guys
you aint gona change my mind. I think maybe I should play a more active
part in your re-education.

Even with all the in-fighting and back-biting between the OS2 dudes and
dudetts we look pretty normal compared to most of the stupidity embraced
by the opposition.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: huffd@nls.net                                     17-Nov-99 00:07:27
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 21:31:09
Subj: Re: Windows posting activitiy...

From: "David D. Huff Jr." <huffd@nls.net>

Absolutely! They've started writing me direct the past several weeks. See
my post from later tonight. I think they are taking the verdict a little
hard. I expected the same verdict, I think it is their limited maturity
that has them in a perpetual knee jerk reaction. I suspect that after the
Caldera decision is announced (foregone conclusion) there will be another
rash of hostility. Then hopefully they will recede back into their
closets.

"David T. Johnson" wrote:

> It seems that our resident "Windows Advocates" here, McCoy, Glatt, and
> Robinson, have been posting here more frequently and their posts are
> more antagonstic than usual.  Is this a response to Microsoft's recent
> court defeats?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            17-Nov-99 00:14:08
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 21:31:09
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:05:02, uno@40th.com? (uno@40th.com) wrote:

[snip]
> 
> >>  http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/openbench1.html
> >That will not prove a thing other than the software was tweaked to favor MS
> 
> I see you didn't read it, Bob.  The whole point of that story was
> to document how it wasn't tweaked to favor MS.  It shows, given the
> exact same hardware, NT Server was generally 100% faster (at least)
> than linux, acting as a web server.
> 
You *have* to be kidding.

Amoebae, living in sealed lakes 3 kms below the Antarctic ice, know 
that the Mindcraft "tests" were as rigged as a clipper, and yet here 
we have our dear friends, the Winvocates, *still* claiming it was an 
honest comparison.

I'm finally beginning to believe it: using Windows does rot the brain.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: nospam_ktk@netlabs.org                            17-Nov-99 01:11:12
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 21:31:09
Subj: Re: ODIN32 Status Report on Warpcast

From: "Adrian Gschwend" <nospam_ktk@netlabs.org>

On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 21:40:46 GMT, Jack Troughton wrote:

>This seems to be showing some very real promise here...

Yes :-)

You can finnaly get the new alpha version at ftp://ftp.os2.org/odin/

The webpage is still located at http://www.netlabs.org/odin/

cu

Adrian


---
Adrian Gschwend
@ OS/2 Netlabs

ICQ: 22419590
ktk@netlabs.org
-------
The OS/2 OpenSource Project:
http://www.netlabs.org


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OS/2 Netlabs (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: wsonna@ibm.net                                    17-Nov-99 00:28:00
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 21:31:09
Subj: Re: Windows posting activitiy...

From: wsonna@ibm.net (William Sonna)

On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 19:22:26, jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt) 
wrote:

> >William Sonna
> >What they fail to grasp is that three months from now, Win '2000 will 
> >be out, the verdict will be under appeal, Gates will be raking in the 
> >bucks as always, and they will be happily spending their money new 
> >hardware and software to run on the OS of the future.
> 
> Meanwhile, William will *still* be trying to figure out what a VAR is,
> and struggling to read Computer Shopper while some "major PC company"
> is selling the fool the exact same hardware that he could be buying
> for less elsewhere, plus heaping on top of it items that he claims he
> doesn't want but is too dumb to figure out how to not buy them

Jeff, you seem to have contracted chronic Computer Shopperitis.  I 
think its commercial smut, but if you think its literature, 
well,......you probably like platform shoes, too.  And you seem to 
think the Windows desktop is really great.  Anyway, who am I to 
criticize ass-thetics?

Out of curiosity, do you put on Home Shopping Network while you read 
Computer Shopper to get the ultimate commercial multimedia experience?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            16-Nov-99 19:46:19
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 21:31:09
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com>

In article <3830C434.73278ED3@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
>"uno@40th.com" wrote:
>> 
>> Who here, if they were just starting today, would install OS2
>> as the sole (99% use) OS?
>
>Me.
>
>> If you have to guts to admit it, at least say why you'd use OS2 (avoid 
>> cliches if possible) instead of say, NT4.
>
>1] Less hardware intensive

Not true. I was able to run NT 4.0 on the exact same hardware as OS/2 Warp 4.

>2] I prefer the GUI

I agree.

>3] Availability of most *nix software, including X itself

NT has this and the full complement of Win32.

>4] Powerful REXX shell scripting language built in

NT has scripting host that can use Rexx as well as other scripting language.

>5] Easy to configure and maintain

NT 4.0 has proven far easier to configure and maintain for me. Much less has 
gone wrong with NT 4 and since more hardware is supported, setup is easier.

>6] Can't catch any of the common Win virii

But OS/2 can catch DOS virii. NT is resistant to most Windows virii if you 
don't run in admin mode. In the two years I've run Windows NT(now W2k) I 
haven't caught a single virus.

>7] Runs any application that I want to use

Runs any app I want to use and many that I may wish to try.

>8] Smaller hard drive footprint

If Partition Magic takes 100 megs, then NT 4 must take a gig. 

>(and just to piss off David)
>9] Cracks RC5 keys 5% faster on my current hardware

Doesn't piss me off. :-) I'm happy poor old OS/2 can crack RC keys.

>> I doubt more than a couple will dare.  I know none will have a good reason.
>
>Perhaps not a good reason in your own mind, but you've already made your
>choice.
>

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: huffd@nls.net                                     17-Nov-99 00:57:06
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 21:31:09
Subj: Re: The Microsnot PR Quiz

From: "David D. Huff Jr." <huffd@nls.net>

I love you by-line any white vans being driven by non-descript men in dark
suits
been following you around lately?

"M. Vaughn" wrote:

> Clinton Bomb Assasinate Federal Cocaine

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            17-Nov-99 01:07:17
  To: All                                               16-Nov-99 21:31:09
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:59:49, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:

> Karel Jansens wrote:
> > 
> > On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:49:44, jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)
> > wrote:
> > 
> > AFAIK, you're the only one who keeps saying that. Yet you seem to
> > think that "the newsgroup" shares your opinion. Are you playing that
> > game "If I shout hard enough, it must be true" again?
> 
> Kinda like Tholen "shouting" that I'm playing an infantile game over and
over
> again without any basis.


Um... Right back at ya? <G>

BTW, Marty, there seems to be something wrong with your X-version of 
Mozilla. When you post with OS/2 all the fields end up right, but with
the AIX version some of the fields appear as if they have shifted in 
Pronews (like  a lenght of zero lines and "INVALID DATE"). It doesn't 
bother me (really!), but there might be something else wrong in there 
<G>.

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lucien@metrowerks.com                             16-Nov-99 13:14:18
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 00:49:19
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: lucien@metrowerks.com

In article <80q57m$23m$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> In the absence of clouds, you would not expect it to rain.

Answer the question: According to your statement, under what conditions
does "implements" "....allow for either 'some' or 'all'
functionality..."?

Here is your statement again for context:

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           16-Nov-99 07:52:10
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 00:49:20
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <zozo8314jg.81.uno@sage.40th.com>, on 11/16/99 at 12:09 AM,
   uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) said:


> Bob Germer? (bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com?) wrote (Mon, 15 Nov 1999 16:07:37
> -0500): >1. OS/2 is far more stable than Windows ... NT,...

> I say not.

I cited two very significant proofs at the end of the message you quoted.
It matches what many of our clients also found.

> >2. OS/2 gives superior performance on typical machines.

> I say not.

Well, in testing the use of WordPerfect 5.1 for DOS in a VDM, Warp can
open a 500 page document and go to Page 345 about five times faster than
under DOS/WFWG. Win9x takes even longer. Many of our clients still use WP
5.1 for DOS and wish to continue to do so since switching to other
wordprocessors would involve too much cost for software, employee
retraining, and lost productivity.

> >3. OS/2 provides much superior networking than Windows 9x and even NT.

> I say not (at least, not to samba or NT machines).

But not many of our clients use either. They have been using Novell and
wish to retain their investment.

> >4. OS/2 is much better supported by its publisher than Windows, -any

> Hm.  Who's got your head in a vice, Bob?

Can you buy a 24/7 support contract from MS? Many of our clients do just
that from IBM.

> >5. OS/2 can be administered and updated by the network supervisor much
> >more easily than Windows running under Novell.

> I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

> >6. OS/2 runs in less memory and on slower machines far faster than Windows
> >9x and on machines on which Windows 98 or NT will no even load due to
> >insufficient resources.

> If that is the case, I wouldn't want to use that
> machine.  But, since we're talking about, at most,
> 4 MB, who really cares.  Sure, a small fraction of
> the already small fraction (0.025%).

But clients facing several hundred dollars per workstation for hardware
upgrades and who are satisfied with the performance of their systems do.

> >7. Our experience is that any DOS program using certain sorting and data
> >retrieval routines such as Btrieve will not run on WFG or 9x but do run in
> >a WinOS2 environment.

> Btrieve DOS was a TSR.  If you want to use a TSR to
> manage any sort of data storage, that's your fault.

If you have an investment of $50,000 for custom software which was written
for DOS and which still fulfills your needs, why toss it out when there is
an OS which is Y2K compliant and which runs your custom software? We have
several law firms who run a time keeping software on which the attornies
and paralegals and secretaries all log the time spent on a given case as
they do a task. This software then calculates the bill, prepares the
bills, etc. Even if there were a recognized best of the best package for
Windows available for free, the cost of retraining, converting data, etc.
would be prohibitive to those firms.

> >8. OS/2 code is and has been very stable for nearly 7 years. The

> I'm sure most of it is.  That really has to be taken for
> granted (after 7 years, anyway).  But a hung up PM app
> (SIQ) can make even a stable kernel look pretty weak.

There are utilities which can kill the hung app in most cases. However,
using standard workplace software doesn't hang very often.

> >9. Unlike Windows, when employees access the web, OS/2 does not try to...
> >fail to function properly, again requiring a reinstallation of Windows and

> Never has happened here (auto update).  I see menu
> items for that, but nothing that pops up like, say,
> the Warp 4 elephant nonsense.

Go to any MS website with Win9x or NT. It searches you system and pops up
an offer to update your software. Same with some plugins such as
RealAudio.

> >10. The lack of support for popular games in OS/2 is seen as an advantage
> >by corporate managers. Unlike Windows machines, they do not find it

> It does DOS games just fine (at least the could I use).
> NT won't run the DOS games (Doom, Falcon 3) at all.
> NT does run Quake, and FS.  But, if that's a problem,
> sounds like there's a deeper problem.

Where is the problem with an employer wanting his employees to work not
play games? The only person to whom the inability to play games on his
workstation is the one who wants to cheat his employer by playing instead
of working.

Where is the problem with an employer wanting to prevent infection of his
system by employees loading software from unknown sources which may
contain a virus?

Where is the deeper problem with a company not wanting its employees doing
their kids homework during working hours? Where is the problem with an
employer not wanting his business tools used for non-company related
things during lunchtime?

> >11. The danger of infection with virii is far, far lower with OS/2 than
> >Windows 9x.

> It only takes one.  Besides, there just isn't much
> being reported about OS2 -- that doesn't mean there
> aren't a fair share of viruses out there (or just
> plain trojans on a popular download site, say).

For every Symantec/IBM identified OS/2 virus, there are literally hundreds
of those buggers for Windows. I did not say there was none, I said as you
quoted that the danger is far lower.

> >12. Many of our clients have been Lotus 1-2-3 users since the days of the

> What else are they going to use?

They generally run DB, a word processor, and email.

> >13...clients' workstations do not have sound cards nor does management want

> Ouch!

Ouch? Why would any employer want to add to the noise of the workplace
with dozens of workstations playing music, making noises, etc? Our clients
regard their workstations as tools, not toys. Sounds are for toys in most
instances.

> >them. However, support for higher end printers, scanners, etc. is

> But, yes, a printer is a printer.  Lexmark will probably be making OS2
> drivers until the cows come home (by the way,
> it's almost dusk, and I can see the cows coming over the
> hill).

Lexmark is the least used printer among our client base. Most still use HP
laserjets with at least 50 of them using HP Color Laserjets. Most of our
client base uses HP4's or HP5's with JetDirect cards. Most have envelope
feeders, two supplemental trays holding a ream of paper in each in
addition to the standard half-ream tray.

> >14. Approximately 35% of our clients are users of Lotus Notes. Notes runs

> 35% of what number?

That is proprietary information. We include several Fortune 500 companies
among our client base. We provide service, installation, etc. for only
their local offices. These are not national contracts. We have many law
firms, insurance companies, engineering firms, etc. among our client base.

> >faster than under Novell and Windows 9x. The Windows server had to be
> >rebooted on an average of 6 times per week. The OS/2 server didn't require
> >a single reboot during the 4 month long test. Both machines were

> That's a nice anecdote, but not quite worth of say:

>  http://www.mindcraft.com/whitepapers/openbench1.html

That will not prove a thing other than the software was tweaked to favor
MS. We are talking about the number of reboots of servers and
workstations.

> >15. OS/2 for most users with at least 96 megs of memory doesn't ever use a
> >swapfile. On every one of our machines on the office network, the date and

> True.  I never have a swap file until I use Navigator.
> Some sites, the useful ones it seems, cause Nav to lose
> memory (and I mean lose it in the system somewhere) and
> the swap file grows in no time (a few minutes). 'Course,
> some apps, like VAC, only work if it can claim the back
> forty of your swap file.

I run Navigator 4.61 for OS/2 dozens of times a day. My swapfile hasn't
been touched since the machine was rebooted 11 days, 0 hours, and 59
minutes ago. When first booted before any application not included in
startup, there are 88 megs of free ram available. After the first use of a
Smartsuite application it drops 2 megs unless one kills somdd.exe which
Lotus loads. After the first use of the Injoy dialer, it drops to 83 megs
where it stays after using and closing Navigator. After using and closing
Relish, I lose another meg unless I kill its Nowserve and Nowkeep
processes which I do not. After 11 days, I still have 84 megs free ram.

> >time of the swapfile is the date and time of the last reboot. On the same
> >machines, Windows is constantly writing to and reading from the swapfile.

> Go figure.  Thing is, while I may have 10 MB free on my
> OS2 machine (out of 128), on NT I have 80 MB free (right
> now I have 55 MB free and another 30MB in file cache).
> I think NT just moves stuff out to the pagefile when it
> hasn't been used in X time.  OS2 leaves it in memory,
> swapping out only if it needs the memory.  Or, not.

Which is much superior and faster no matter how fast your hard disks.
Thank you for proving my point.

> >My personal machine on which I am composing this article, has been running
> >10 days, 9 hours and 36 minutes since the last reboot. My swapper.dat file
> >remains at the 8 megs Warp established during the boot. Currently there

> Well, you can't just go by swap size.  It's possible
> that none of it has ever been used.  You can find out
> exactly how many pages are in use by looking at a data
> structure off the SAS.  That's the only way to really
> know.

If the file hasn't been altered, it hasn't been used. I have set the
default swapfile size to 2 megs and not seen it touched. In fact, on one
Domino Server with only 64 megs of memory, it doesn't grow except during
reindexing of large >1gig  databases.

> >are 31 processes running with 15 active at this very moment. I still have
> >69 megabytes of available free RAM.

> I've got 2939 handles, 206 threads, and 40 processes
> right now (not much, really).  Whoops!.  I'm up to 61 MB
> available, and 24 MB cache now.

But your cache is much, much slower than ram. I never want to use a disk
cache.

> >16. Windows needs far more diskspace than Warp for the program files. In

> Because EXEs aren't normally packed (exe:2) like OS2
> apps/dlls are.  They can be packed by third-party tools.
> Sure, I can see having compressed code files as useful.
> They are compressed in WinCE.  File sizes there are
> truly small.

> >fact, if the OEM installs Windows 9x on a new machine, one gets some 300
> >megs of cab files taking up space for no good reason. OS/2 can easily be
> >installed on a machine with a 300 meg harddisk and run SmartSuite,

> I have an installed NT4 SP5 on a 250 MB partition.
> It's got 90 MB free.

Now try to install Office on that drive. I have installed Warp with
Windows support in less than 80 megs on many, many machines. That leaves
me with plenty of room for SmartSuite or Office would it run in Windows
3.1. Installation of a larger hard disk in a client's workstation costs
the client between $200 and $400 depending mostly on the time necessary to
backup and restore the data from the old drive. The price is affected very
little by the size of the new drive unless they are going above 13 gigs.
We charge approximately $125 for a 10 gig drive plus $75 for installation
and formatting. Data transfer, backup and restoration, etc. are done on a
time basis.

> >install some larger disks since it is now more than 80% of capacity. I
> >doubt it will be shut down again until the next power outage longer than 2
> >hours. It ran for 340 days before the August incident. No Windows NT, 9x,
> >or DOS/WFWG machine ever made it through a week without a reboot.

> Easy to say, Bob, but only for your experience.  In
> my experience, NT4 SP3 (what I usually use, but also
> the SP5 and NT Server SP3) has failed once due to
> printing from Adobe Reader 3.0 (probably an interaction
> with the lexmark driver).  It prints fine in Acrobat 4.0.
> Other than that, which happened 30 Sep, no other faults
> on this machine (since May99).

Well, 340 days is a hell of a lot longer than from May 1 to 30 September
which is only 153 days. In fact that makes Warp more than 2 times more
reliable than NT.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               16-Nov-99 08:48:06
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 00:49:20
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Mike Timbol writes:
> 
> > The file in question is javainuf.exe, which contains classes.zip.
> 
> Illogical, Mike.  You wrote "I was able to read the file" and then
> went on to reference what you read "The first file in classes.zip".
> Remember, you were referring to classes.zip long before you ever
> mentioned javainuf.exe; I had to coax that top-level filename out
> of you.

Dave, stupidly as usual, continues to ignore the fact that Mike referred to
classes.zip as being compressed.  The only way he could view classes.zip as
being compressed is if it were inside of JAVAINUF.EXE because the classes.zip
file itself has 0% compression as I have shown in the past.  Too bad Dave
doesn't let facts get in the way of his fantasy world.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           16-Nov-99 08:38:02
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 00:49:20
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <Py7Y3.21234$zd.222514@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com>, on 11/16/99 at 07:18
AM,
   "Brent Davies" <brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com> said:

> However, they bring a lot more functionality to the table.  I have seen
> them send warning singles for pre-failure of drives.  Compaq honors
> these pre-failure alerts by replacing the drives, under warranty, before
> they fail.  This pre-failure warning feature works with the Compaq
> controllers, but won't work with third-party controllers.  It's a
> valuable feature, but is it something that could be implemented on all
> hardware?  No without standards, and I don't know of standards that
> allow for that functionality.

> I think that these kinds of things are developed mainly to lock
> customers into a certain vendor.  But as long as they are valuable
> features, these practices can't be all bad.

Absolutely correct. This is why public agency and corporate bids
frequently specify only ONE brand of hardware.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jhimmel@i-2000.com                                16-Nov-99 13:55:20
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 00:49:20
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: jhimmel@i-2000.com (James Himmelman)

On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 00:11:42, uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) wrote:

> 
> James Himmelman? (jhimmel@i-2000.com?) wrote (Mon, 15 Nov 1999 22:23:29
GMT):
> >Are you scared of MY posts?
> 
> I don't think I even read them, or at least I don't
> remember them.  But thanks for remembering mine --
> it's nice to know you care.

Are you losing it? You responded to my posts, so you obviously read 
them. I guess you have run out of answers.

[[[ James Himmelman - jhimmel@i-2000.com ]]]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               16-Nov-99 09:06:28
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 00:49:20
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Chad Mulligan wrote:
> 
> Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:3830CB83.2BC9AD59@stny.rr.com...
> > Chad Mulligan wrote:
> > >
> > > Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > news:3830BF84.D4A81F95@stny.rr.com...
> > > > Bob Germer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On <3KcvOMPOEPq1eeORav0FX3CJHRrw@4ax.com>, on 11/15/99 at 01:30 AM,
> > > > >    Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> said:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Tsk. Tsk.
> > > > >
> > > > > > Yes, it is a personal attack. Just up your street BTW
> > > > >
> > > > > Typical conduct of an Arab terrorist. You can't win a rational
> argument
> > > > > so you attempt to blow others up.
> > > >
> > > > Hmm... judging by the ease and flair with which he wrote out that
> racial
> > > > slur, perhaps he is old and ignorant as his previous postings have
> implied.
> > >
> > > Good point, not all terrorists are Arabs.
> >
> > Another high quality individual I see.  Sad, but not terribly surprising.
> 
> I was agreeing with you stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I suppose you meant that the other way around then, "not all Arabs are
terrorists".

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  16-Nov-99 09:04:22
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 00:49:20
Subj: Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES EX

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

> I Here Their Is A Version Of Os/2 Warp 4 That Can Run
> Windows 95 Insted Of Win 3.1 And That People Who
> Have Been Inside IBM Have Actually Seen It Work
> But Can't Be Released Because Microsoft Wont Alow It

Well, let's suppose that's true (I, frankly, don't believe it, but, hey,
I've been known to be wrong!).  You're saying that you can now run, under
old-fashioned OS/2, a more modern product by a competitor.  Well, gee, you
could have run that competitor's product in 1995, goshdarnit!  In the
meantime, that competitor has continued to move ahead.  Tell me, can your
OS/2 run Windows 2000?  I thought not.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org                      16-Nov-99 06:10:08
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 00:49:20
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org>

Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:38316501.B23C75DD@stny.rr.com...
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> > Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:3830CB83.2BC9AD59@stny.rr.com...
> > > Chad Mulligan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
> > > > news:3830BF84.D4A81F95@stny.rr.com...
> > > > > Bob Germer wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On <3KcvOMPOEPq1eeORav0FX3CJHRrw@4ax.com>, on 11/15/99 at 01:30
AM,
> > > > > >    Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> said:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Tsk. Tsk.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Yes, it is a personal attack. Just up your street BTW
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Typical conduct of an Arab terrorist. You can't win a rational
> > argument
> > > > > > so you attempt to blow others up.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hmm... judging by the ease and flair with which he wrote out that
> > racial
> > > > > slur, perhaps he is old and ignorant as his previous postings have
> > implied.
> > > >
> > > > Good point, not all terrorists are Arabs.
> > >
> > > Another high quality individual I see.  Sad, but not terribly
surprising.
> >
> > I was agreeing with you stupid!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> I suppose you meant that the other way around then, "not all Arabs are
> terrorists".

No.  The slur in the statement is that terrorists are automatically Arabs, I
pointed out that there are terrorists who aren't Arabs.  Being an Arab or
being called an Arab isn't a slur.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CampusCWIX (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  16-Nov-99 09:09:13
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 00:49:20
Subj: Re: Tholen's Hypocrisy and Illogic Exposed Once again

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3830C5FC.F4EAAE2F@stny.rr.com...
> Jeff Glatt wrote:
> >
> > From: tholen@ifa.hawaii.edu
> > Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.advocacy
> > Subject: Re: Glatt Digest, volume 2450455
> > Date: 8 Jan 1997 01:29:35 GMT
> > Organization: University of Hawaii
> > Message-ID: <5aut9v$e1k@news.Hawaii.Edu>
> >
> > >Did I say "all" anywhere?
> >
> > It's implicit in a similarity comparison.

Truer words were never spoken:

> Too bad he lacks the courage to respond to you anymore after your having
> utterly humiliated him so many times.  It's also too bad that all it takes
to
> utterly humiliate him is to quote his own conflicting, ignorant words.

Ah, but we're dealing with that alleged astrologer, Tholen.  You can't be
surprised in the least that Tholen takes the coward's way out, can you?  I
mean, you've "engaged" his "mind," so you know from what incredibly weak
vantage points he argues!

- Joe


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           16-Nov-99 08:41:22
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 00:49:20
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <383123C5.82A38CCC@hr.nl>, on 11/16/99 at 10:28 AM,
   Illya Vaes <ivaes@hr.nl> said:

> Marty wrote:

> Saying "don't punish them for doing one thing" because otherwise they
> *might* do another thing is letting them get away with doing two things.
> The sacking of "innocent employees" is apparantly real enough to base
> the verdict on, so it's real enough to consider them getting away with
> it too.

Absolutely. Other than some government agencies, no one has a right to
expect never to be laid off. Even civil servants can be "riffed" for
things entirely innocent and out of their control. 

One of my daughters in law was laid off as a teacher since enrollment
declined and she was the last teacher hired. It was not the fault of her,
the school board, etc. Rather, a local Christian academy started its own
kindergarten as did the one of the two local Catholic parishes.
Kindergarten enrollment dropped 35% making one teacher unnecessary.
Although Holly was a third grade teacher for three years, she was the last
elementary teacher hired by the district and they she went based upon the
union contract which specified last hired/first fired.


> >The anti-trust laws apply to corporations. Corporations, in the eyes of the
> >law are effectively their own people. They can be held accountable for 
> >crimes and even go bankrupt independently of those people who comprise
> >them. Anti-trust laws have no application to individuals.

> In other words, no-one can be held accountable for anti-trust offences,
> since that would mean individuals would be punished for what "the
> company" has done. Just toss out all laws governing business then...

Tell that to Mr. George Burens, a former executive of General Electric and
several other individuals who worked for Westinghouse, Square D, etc. who
all went to jail for breaking anti-trust laws.

> >Sorry, but hitmen and drug trafficking have little applicability to what we
> >are discussing.

> All illegal "companies" also have legal fronts and have people working
> for them legally and innocently, yet you have no problem blowing up
> those companies because of some perceived difference in the exact crime
> that was committed by the company...
> I hope you or your beloved ones never find themselves working for a
> company that turns out to be related to an illegal operation that is
> busted and find your/themselves out of a job.

You are absolutely correct. No matter what the illegal act, a felony is a
felony.

> Yes you have. The mere word "punishing", with *your* interpretation of
> what that "must" entail, has spurred this discussion where you take the
> view of their punishment being not desirable. You (said you) want them
> not to be punished for what they have done. In effect, you want the law
> to become a sharade.

Other than the spelling of charade, I agree completely.

>  
> >>They'll have gotten the signal that they can bloody well do as they
> >>please, that's what. And no need to be acting as if they're law-abiding
> >>either.
> >As I said before, they can be handcuffed (prevented from causing future
> >harm) without being handcuffed and beaten.

> *Anything* that will *effectively* prevent them from ever causing future
> harm *will* be punishment for a company that is completely emersed into
> their illegal and unethical behaviour.
> And the little detail of not being allowed to enjoy the fruits of your
> illegal activities is rather important in law too.

Amen!

> >The court is as concerned with upholding the spirit of the laws as it is
> >with upholding the letter of the laws, therefore, the laws themselves are
> >quite a relevant concern.

> The spirit of the laws, when determining guilt, only come into it when
> the law itself isn't clear, when it's ambigous. Only then will a case
> find itself to the Supreme Court, and there it will be decided what the
> intent of the law was, thereby establishing jurisprudence.
> In lower courts, the spirit of the law _may_ come into it when it's time
> for the verdict (the punishment!), not when deciding guilt.

Not quite right. There are numerous cases where a jury found a defendant
guilty and in which the verdict was overturned because the law itself was
found to be unconstitutional during the appellate process. The verdict is
not the punishment. The verdict is the finding of fact by the judge or
jury. The sentence is the punishment. Both the finder of fact as well as
the sentencer can and do consider the spirit or legislative intent of the
law.  In most cases, the sentencing is done by the judge whether (s)he or
a jury was the finder of fact. However, in some jurisdictions and in some
cases, the jury also determines the sentence. For example, in a capital
murder trial, the jury is both the finder of fact as well as the decider
of punishment. In some states the jury word is final. In others the judge
can set aside the jury's decision. 

Moreover, in many states, the judge has no discretion when it comes to
sentence. The sentence for many crimes is set forth in the law and the
judge just hands down what the law prescribes. For example, here in New
Jersey anyone convicted of a felony involving the use of a gun must be
sentenced to 5 years in prison to be served after the sentence for the
underlying crime is served. The judge may have latitude regarding the
sentence for the underlying crime, but he MUST add the 5 years consecutive
sentence. Also in many states the law specifies a minimum prison sentence
for most crimes which the judge cannot change.


> I'd already explained that. It would come in handy if you would actually
> read what I wrote.
>  
> >>>Yes, but in the case of murder, the only person punished is the
> >>>murderer.
> >>His/her mother/father loses a son/daughter.
> >>His/her brother/sister loses a brother/sister.
> >>His/her wife/husband loses a husband/wife.
> >>His/her child(ren) lose(s a) father/mother.
> >>etc.

> No answer, so I take it you agree that more people than the perpetrator
> get to be punished for his/her crime.

Agreed. And don't forget society as a whole is harmed when someone commits
murder. While the criminal defendant who is convicted technically is
responsible for the costs of trial, it is the rare defendant who has the
funds to do so. Thus society as a whole (or at least those who pay taxes)
are harmed because we pay those costs. Then there is the psychological
damage to the body politic of having a criminal in its midst. >  
> >>Is it just that they have made a lot of money by riding the wave of crime?
> >The government is currently in the process of determining if any crimes 
> >were committed.

> AFAIK, the 'findings of fact' were the determination of guilt and now
> the 'findings of law' will follow to determine the actions to be taken.
> The verdict will only summarize those together.

This is an unusual but not unprecedented step Judge Jackson has utilized.
In rendering a verdict, the finder of fact which in this case is Judge
Jackson must first find that there was illegal activity and that the
defendants engaged in these proscribed activities. He uses the finding of
fact to justify his verdict. Usually, this is a single apparently seamless
process. The judge reviews the facts in chambers (usually not always) and
applies applicable law and passes judgement all at the same time. In this
case, in an attempt to bring MS to a consent decree with the DOJ and the
states, he released the findings of fact before actually rendering the
verdict. What would be unprecedented would be anything other than a guilty
verdict if MS stonewalls and refuses to enter a consent decree.

> >>Is it just that there will be no stopping the company after such a no
> >>punishment decision?
> >Prevention is a better alternative to punishment.

> The illegal actions cannot be prevented anymore, they have already been
> perpetrated. They must be punished.
> Of course, just punishing may not be enough to prevent repetition (and
> MS advocates used to argue that the $1 million fine per day that MS
> might have had to pay earlier would be "a small price for the money and
> power the fined actions would bring MS", so even your feared fine may
> not prevent it), so I guess prevention _will_ come into it.
> But at the very least, the benefits the offender has enjoyed because of
> its offense must be taken away.
> If you steal and are caught, you're not just (trying to be) prevented of
> doing it again, you lose the money too. I don't see why MS should be
> treated differently and be allowed to keep the money.

One of the finest sentences I ever heard handed down was in Federal Court
in Philadelphia. The judge, in sentencing a convicted white collar
criminal to a term in prison stated that the purpose of a sentence was
threefold:

1. To punish the miscreant for his illegal activities and to take from him
the fruits of his illegal acts.

2. To act as a deterrent to the criminal against repeating those acts.

3. To act as a warning to others not to do the same things.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jimf@frostbytes.com                               16-Nov-99 09:23:09
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 00:49:20
Subj: Stealing from Xerox and some sane discussion on remedies

From: Jim Frost <jimf@frostbytes.com>

Kelly Robinson wrote:
> I've already mentioned Apple, who has been "pulling a microsoft" to so many
> schools that people ignored the legitimacy of the 'ease of use' philosophy
> Steve Jobs stole from Xerox.

I don't want to rain on your parade, but Apple actually licensed the
technology from Xerox.  (Not many people know that, but it's true.)  As I
recall they paid a flat $1M for it, then they pumped more than $1B into
improving it.

There are a lot of things I can fault Apple for, but ripping off technology
isn't one of them.

> Microsoft's stuff has problems.   But when compared to the competition,
> Microsoft's stuff is comparatively superior.  That can be argued since I
> will readily admit MS operating systems have a shair of problems, BUT the
> following CAN NOT BE ARGUED unless you are a total retard:  You do NOT
> punish the 'leader' because the leader's competition is so fucking
> brain-dead and incompetent that they don't know what they're showing the
> public in terms of image and/or product...

I don't think most people want to punish Microsoft for that.  What they're
concerned with is Microsoft using monopoly power to maintain and extend their
presence in the market.  When they do that they don't win because they're
better, they win because they can starve the other guys to death by leveraging
their monopoly position.

That's illegal, and there's a reason why: it stifles competition and in the
long run that hurts everyone.

Now, I'm not one of those guys that thinks we should tear up Microsoft for
this.  There are a lot of things they did that are undeniably good for the
industry.  But lots of things they did were bad for the industry too.

Probably the best possible remedy would be to take away the monopoly lever. 
The two most important things to do are:

1. Eliminate price variability so that Microsoft cannot use product pricing to
punish or reward vendor behavior.  This need not be as drastic as having the
government set the price -- rather, whatever price Microsoft sells the product
to one vendor is the price it must sell it to all the others, and the prices
must be published to ensure it.

2. Force Microsoft to sell the product to all comers.  This eliminates the
possibility of strangling vendors who go in directions that Microsoft doesn't
like by witholding their monopoly product(s).

3. Eliminate the possibility that Microsoft can separate any functionality
into a separate product after it has been bundled with the OS.  This takes
away the possibility of them bundling the product as an OS feature until the
competition is dead, then unbundling it and selling it separately later.  (So
far they haven't done this kind of thing, but one could argue that they really
haven't had the opportunity yet.  So let's close that barn door before the
horse escapes.)

Now the interesting thing here is that none of these things denies Microsoft
the right to improve their product or compete in the market.  It just takes
away the advantage of having a monopoly.

A good hand-slap is called for as well, perhaps in the way of a stiff fine,
but realistically speaking that isn't going to make a whit of difference to
anyone involved except the government.

> And Microsoft, if they did force IE onto people, did a wrong.  But they
> didn't need to force it since Microsoft was doing us a favor by breaking up
> netscape's  monopoly while providing a product which is more stable, better
> thought out in terms of usage, and better designed apart from a holey
> ActiveX.

In all fairness it took Microsoft awhile to get to the point where IE was
better than Netscape, and it's very arguable that it got a much better shot at
Netscape because they destroyed the profitability of the browser market (no
money coming in makes things a little more desperate for Netscape you know)
and had the ability to jam the product down the throats of the PC vendors.

You get no argument from me that IE is, today, a better product than
Netscape.  It's faster, more featureful, more usable, and a lot more
reliable.  But it wasn't always this way and back when it wasn't Microsoft
leveraged their OS position to push it to the exclusion of Netscape.  Maybe
Netscape would still be competing vigorously if Microsoft hadn't done that.

Lastly, it's worth noting that any remedies are coming too late.  If you
hadn't noticed Microsoft is starting to lose their hold.  The PC desktop
market is at or very near its peak; over the next several years the vital
industries will be servers and display systems (palmtops and the like) with
ever increasing reliance on networks.

Microsoft has always faced vigorous competition in the server market, although
they had the opportunity to starve out vendors like Novell on the PC platform
(which will increasingly be THE server platform, sorry Sun).  Fortunately
Linux can't be starved to death by wielding PC monopoly power so we will have
perpetual competition in that arena.  Microsoft is petrified of Linux: it
changed the rules of the game in the server market.

But what's really going to be interesting is end-user devices.  To date that
has been PCs, but not for very much longer.  A new breed of devices -- cheap
and heavily networked -- will rapidly overtake PCs in the next several years. 
What's interesting is in this market Microsoft has no monopoly power, and in
fact their abuse of their PC monopoly power has probably hurt them a lot
because vendors are scared to death that it will happen again.  But that's not
all there was to it; CE carries too much baggage from the desktop.  It's just
not that good a system for smaller devices, and better systems are winning.

My guess?  PalmOS wins this emerging market hands down.  The only way this
doesn't happen is if they pull an Apple and keep the technology to themselves,
but so far that hasn't been their approach.  They would do well to divest
themselves of the hardware side of their business, though, adopting the same
model Microsoft used back in the early days of MS-DOS.

While we're at it, here's what you can do to make some money on this whole
situation:

1. Divest yourself of Sun sometime in the next two years.  Sun is approaching
an earnings cliff.  I can't predict when it will happen because the Internet
has really boosted demand for servers but all indications are of a massive
shift to PC-based servers running Linux for most of Sun's market.  When they
fall they're going to fall hard and fast.  It would have happened already if
they hadn't got lucky with the timing of the Internet explosion.

2. Invest in PalmOS companies, particularly the Palm spinoff.  Several of
these companies are going to show Microsoft-like growth for the next decade
and a half.

3. Invest in Linux companies, particularly Red Hat.  VA Linux looks really
interesting too; they're a lot like Sun was in the early days.  Unfortunately
for them there's Dell, but they should do really well anyway.

4. Invest in Microsoft shortly after whatever remedy is the outcome of the DOJ
case.  There should be a stock drop, perhaps a major one, but whatever emerges
from that is going to be hell-bent on recovery and there's a lot of steam left
in Microsoft and a lot of distance to go with PC-based systems, especially as
the market shifts from RISC-based servers to PC-based servers.  Whatever his
faults Gates knows how to win.

And have a nice day.

jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Road Runner (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jimf@frostbytes.com                               16-Nov-99 09:25:20
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 00:49:20
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Jim Frost <jimf@frostbytes.com>

flmighe@attglobal.net wrote:
> 
> >: Kelly Robinson wrote:
> >: Be offered it to computer companies FREE if they would put it on
> >: their computers.  Not one did.  How is this incompetent?  What would
> >: you have had Be do?  Start paying companies to use their product?
> 
> I think judge Jackson excluded any FREE operating systems from his
> consideration of commercial viability. He also narrowed the market
> to Intel based processors so MacOS is not relevant. The very interesting
> thing is why he did not view OS/2 as a commercially viable non
> Microsoft operating system. The answer is not commonly known. OS/2
> was developed by Microsoft. Microsoft likely still controls its marketing
> and viability. The judge is very smart to figure this out. Hopefully he
> will also recognize that FREEING OS/2 from Microsoft control may be
> the end of the Microsoft monopoly in Intel operating systems.

Pfft.  OS/2 is not commercially viable anymore.  The only reason IBM is still
supporting it is that they have a lot of existing customers who will be
pissed-off if they drop it cold, and those customers buy a lot of AS/400s.

Microsoft gave up their hold on OS/2 years ago.  They no longer control its
destiny.

jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Road Runner (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jimf@frostbytes.com                               16-Nov-99 09:35:16
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 00:49:20
Subj: Re: "All bets are off regarding Windows" - IBM

From: Jim Frost <jimf@frostbytes.com>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
> Ideally, IBM execs would love to kill off all PCs and
> replace them with dumb terminals. Why? Because you need expensive
> servers to hook them to. And who makes their bread and butter selling
> expensive mainframes?
> 
> Why, IBM does.

The basic fallacy with this approach is that the servers need not be
expensive.  My PalmV uses my PC as its server, for instance, but perhaps more
illustrative is the demographics of servers on the Internet.  Anyone notice
how many of those are just PCs on steroids?

jim frost
jimf@frostbytes.com

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Road Runner (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          16-Nov-99 09:18:29
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 00:49:20
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

Good list, Marty.  To which I'll add:

10] No Outlook Express and the attendant security problems
11] No Activex and the attendant security problems
12] No native Internet Explorer and the attendant security problems
13] More secure access to the Internet, in general
14] No MS software snooping my hard drive and sending information to MS

Bennie Nelson

Marty wrote:
> 
> "uno@40th.com" wrote:
> >
> > Who here, if they were just starting today, would install OS2
> > as the sole (99% use) OS?
> 
> Me.
> 
> > If you have to guts to admit it, at least say why you'd use OS2 (avoid
> > cliches if possible) instead of say, NT4.
> 
> 1] Less hardware intensive
> 2] I prefer the GUI
> 3] Availability of most *nix software, including X itself
> 4] Powerful REXX shell scripting language built in
> 5] Easy to configure and maintain
> 6] Can't catch any of the common Win virii
> 7] Runs any application that I want to use
> 8] Smaller hard drive footprint
> (and just to piss off David)
> 9] Cracks RC5 keys 5% faster on my current hardware
> 
> > I doubt more than a couple will dare.  I know none will have a good
reason.
> 
> Perhaps not a good reason in your own mind, but you've already made your
> choice.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ivaes@hr.nl                                       16-Nov-99 16:06:19
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 01:54:22
Subj: Re: MS is a monopoly - but here is a legit questrion

From: Illya Vaes <ivaes@hr.nl>

Bob Germer wrote:
>Then when those damages are trebled as the law provides and the lawyers'
>fees are added, MS could be on the verge of being bankrupt. Since I'll
>never get my fondest wish fulfilled (to play a round of golf with Payne
>Stewart in his knickers and me in my kilt), I have a new one. A headline
>reading "MicroSoft files for Bankruptcy". Maybe this one will come true.

Now now, you wouldn't want to make all those poor "innocent" MS employees
unemployed, now would you????  :-}   (sarcasm)

-- 
Illya Vaes   (ivaes@hr.nl)        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385           Not speaking for anyone but myself

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dank@alumni.caltech.edu                           16-Nov-99 15:58:01
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 01:54:22
Subj: Re: Stealing from Xerox and some sane discussion on remedies

From: Dan Kegel <dank@alumni.caltech.edu>

Jim Frost wrote:
> Probably the best possible remedy would be to take away the monopoly lever.
> The two most important things to do are:
> 
> 1. Eliminate price variability so that Microsoft cannot use product pricing
to
> punish or reward vendor behavior.  This need not be as drastic as having the
> government set the price -- rather, whatever price Microsoft sells the
product
> to one vendor is the price it must sell it to all the others, and the prices
> must be published to ensure it.

I agree wholeheartedly.
 
> 2. Force Microsoft to sell the product to all comers.  This eliminates the
> possibility of strangling vendors who go in directions that Microsoft
doesn't
> like by witholding their monopoly product(s).

Again, I agree completely.

> Now the interesting thing here is that none of these things denies Microsoft
> the right to improve their product or compete in the market.  It just takes
> away the advantage of having a monopoly.

Agreed.  The government should not tell Microsoft what software to write,
only watch over them to make sure they don't sell it unfairly.

> A good hand-slap is called for as well, perhaps in the way of a stiff fine,
> but realistically speaking that isn't going to make a whit of difference to
> anyone involved except the government.

Yes, something large enough to sting, but not large enough to be unfair.

> Lastly, it's worth noting that any remedies are coming too late.  If you
> hadn't noticed Microsoft is starting to lose their hold.  The PC desktop
> market is at or very near its peak; over the next several years the vital
> industries will be servers and display systems (palmtops and the like) with
> ever increasing reliance on networks.

The remedies are partly there to keep Microsoft from extending
its monopoly to new areas.  This applies even if their old monopoly starts
to fade; it's in the public interest to keep a known abuser of monopoly
power from getting its hands into another set of cookie jars.
In that sense, the remedies are not too late.

- Dan

-- 
(The above is just my personal opinion; I don't speak for my employer,
 except on the occasional talk show.)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Precious Little (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: matvon-nospam@mad.scientist.com                   16-Nov-99 10:03:14
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 01:54:22
Subj: Re: The Microsnot PR Quiz

From: matvon-nospam@mad.scientist.com (M. Vaughn)

In article <KD7Y3.21235$zd.223242@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com>, "Brent
Davies" <brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com> wrote:

> M.Vaughn <mwvaugh-spamblows@life.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
> news:mwvaugh-spamblows-1511991656460001@mac2322c.me.uiuc.edu...
> | Astroturfer
> 
> 
> Hahahahaha!  Is that your typical reply to someone who makes a commend about
> your less-than creative tweaking of MS's name?
> 
> -B

Um, I didn't make the comment about MS's name.  Do you *know* what an
astroturfer is?  Worse yet, are *you* an astroturfer?

--
Clinton Bomb Assasinate Federal Cocaine

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Lightyear Media (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: hunters@sapphire.indstate.edu                     16-Nov-99 16:29:17
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 01:54:22
Subj: Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES EX

From: hunters@sapphire.indstate.edu

In article <38316471.0@nntp2.borg.com>,
  "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com> wrote:

> Well, let's suppose that's true (I, frankly, don't believe it, but,
> hey, I've been known to be wrong!).  You're saying that you can now
> run, under old-fashioned OS/2, a more modern product by a competitor.

Actually, there is no real technical reason that IBM couldn't do this.
They have the Win95 source*, and with some minor changes and a
recompile, it could run in a VDM. I can almost start Win95 (safe-mode)
in a VDM now, (It dies on loading the video driver) so I don't see it
as too far-fetched that, with the source, IBM could make it work. You'd
still have the 512MB problem under Warp4 tho...



*While I personally do not really know it to be an actual fact, it is
very very likely that they do have the source, and thus I make this
assumption.

--
-Steven Hunter                *OS/2 Warp 4 * |But on the other hand...|
hunters@sapphire.indstate.edu *AMD K6-2 400* |There's 5 more fingers. |


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rjf@yyycomasia.com                                16-Nov-99 16:48:18
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 01:54:22
Subj: Re: Windows posting activitiy...

From: rjf@yyycomasia.com (rj friedman)

On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:47:06, "David T. Johnson" 
<djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote:

It seems that our resident "Windows Advocates" here, McCoy, Glatt, and
Robinson, have been posting here more frequently and their posts are
more antagonstic than usual.  Is this a response to Microsoft's recent
court defeats?

If you've been on advocacy for any length of time you will 
notice that every time MS is in trouble - usually with being
late with a buggy product release, or facing the release of 
an `opponent's superior product, all of a sudden there are a
raft of MS propoganda parroting stooges that show up out of 
the blue (Robinson and Mulligan being but the latest in a 
long string of ventriloquists' dummies). Between the 
disaster that Windows 2ooo is turning out to be, and the 
whupping MS got at their monopoly trial, these shills are 
having to work overtime.

But David `The Faker' McCoy or Glatt don't belong in this 
category - as those two psychos are always here `acting out'
to release their self-hatred anxieties.



________________________________________________________

[RJ]                 OS/2 - Live it, or live with it. 
rj friedman          Team ABW              
Taipei, Taiwan       rjf@yyycomasia.com 

To send email - remove the `yyy'
________________________________________________________

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: SEEDNet News Service (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mugwump@subdimension.com.garbage                  16-Nov-99 12:05:10
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 01:54:22
Subj: Re: Stealing from Xerox and some sane discussion on remedies

From: Mugwump <mugwump@subdimension.com.garbage>

Jim Frost wrote:

>Kelly Robinson wrote:
>> I've already mentioned Apple, who has been "pulling a microsoft" to so many
>> schools that people ignored the legitimacy of the 'ease of use' philosophy
>> Steve Jobs stole from Xerox.
>
>I don't want to rain on your parade, but Apple actually licensed the
>technology from Xerox.  (Not many people know that, but it's true.)  As I
>recall they paid a flat $1M for it, then they pumped more than $1B into
>improving it.
>
>There are a lot of things I can fault Apple for, but ripping off technology
>isn't one of them.

Apple had actually already begun work on the Mac when Jobs visited
Xerox. Also, Jeff Raskin, an Apple employee, had been tinkering with
graphical interfaces as early as 1967. Apple, while inspired by the
Xerox Alto, was solely responsible for many main elements of the GUI
as we know it today including the trash can/recycle bin, the
clipboard, and drag-and-drop filemanagement.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Naked Lunch (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               16-Nov-99 20:30:26
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:14
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Karel Jansens wrote:
> 
> On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:59:49, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:
> 
> > Karel Jansens wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 18:49:44, jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > AFAIK, you're the only one who keeps saying that. Yet you seem to
> > > think that "the newsgroup" shares your opinion. Are you playing that
> > > game "If I shout hard enough, it must be true" again?
> >
> > Kinda like Tholen "shouting" that I'm playing an infantile game over and
over
> > again without any basis.
> 
> Um... Right back at ya? <G>
> 
> BTW, Marty, there seems to be something wrong with your X-version of
> Mozilla. When you post with OS/2 all the fields end up right, but with
> the AIX version some of the fields appear as if they have shifted in
> Pronews (like  a lenght of zero lines and "INVALID DATE"). It doesn't
> bother me (really!), but there might be something else wrong in there
> <G>.

Yeah.  The AIX version is kinda rickety at times.  We just upgraded to 4.7
(hence relevance to the topic ;-)) and I wonder if it was happening before
that
or not.

Though, when I view it in Netscape 4.6 for OS/2, it comes out right:
Lines: 11
Date:  Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:59:49 -0500

Strange.  Perhaps it's just a ProNews-ism?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               16-Nov-99 20:41:19
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:14
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> 
> In article <3830C434.73278ED3@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
> >"uno@40th.com" wrote:
> >>
> >> Who here, if they were just starting today, would install OS2
> >> as the sole (99% use) OS?
> >
> >Me.
> >
> >> If you have to guts to admit it, at least say why you'd use OS2 (avoid
> >> cliches if possible) instead of say, NT4.
> >
> >1] Less hardware intensive
> 
> Not true. I was able to run NT 4.0 on the exact same hardware as OS/2 Warp
4.

That doesn't disprove my claim.  I am not able to smoothly operate NT 4 on my
486/100, but Warp 4 runs perfectly well and is quite responsive.
 
> >2] I prefer the GUI
> 
> I agree.
> 
> >3] Availability of most *nix software, including X itself
> 
> NT has this and the full complement of Win32.

Yes and no.  NT has X emulators and much of the *nix stuff has been ported. 
OS/2 has X servers and most *nix stuff has been ported.

> >4] Powerful REXX shell scripting language built in
> 
> NT has scripting host that can use Rexx as well as other scripting language.

Which is why I specified "built-in", meaning everyone who installs OS/2 has
it,
so it is safe to use for installation scripts and whatnot.  You can't assume
that REXX is present on an NT system.

> >5] Easy to configure and maintain
> 
> NT 4.0 has proven far easier to configure and maintain for me. Much less has
> gone wrong with NT 4 and since more hardware is supported, setup is easier.

YMMV.

> >6] Can't catch any of the common Win virii
> 
> But OS/2 can catch DOS virii. NT is resistant to most Windows virii if you
> don't run in admin mode. In the two years I've run Windows NT(now W2k) I
> haven't caught a single virus.

In all my years running OS/2 I haven't caught a DOS virus.  The DOS virus dies
(in memory at least) when the DOS session is closed and NT's DOS session is
just as vulnerable.

> >7] Runs any application that I want to use
> 
> Runs any app I want to use and many that I may wish to try.

YMMV.

> >8] Smaller hard drive footprint
> 
> If Partition Magic takes 100 megs, then NT 4 must take a gig.

:-)  Yeah yeah.

My installed OS/2 system with my base functional apps was, in fact, smaller
than my NT installation was with similar apps installed.

> >(and just to piss off David)
> >9] Cracks RC5 keys 5% faster on my current hardware
> 
> Doesn't piss me off. :-) I'm happy poor old OS/2 can crack RC keys.

Glad to hear it.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: wsonna@ibm.net                                    17-Nov-99 01:43:14
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:14
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: wsonna@ibm.net (William Sonna)

On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:57:49, jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt) 
wrote:


[Many references to Computer Shopper snipped]  

> >Computer Shopper =  Large type, glossy ads, superficial reviews and 
> >short sentences.
> 
> hahahahahah!!! Glossy ads?? Apparently, you've either never read the
> magazine (which is likely since you obviously don't know what a VAR
> is), or you never read past the first 30 pages or so.
> 
> Typically ignorant, uninformed opinion from an OS/2 Zealot.

HaHaHaHaHaha!!!!  YES!  Glossy adds! Shiny adds! Lots 'n lots of 'em!!
 And YOU think they're great!!

Tell the truth, Jeff: YOU LOVE Computer Shopper!  I bet you even have 
an "I [heart] Computer Shopper" bumper sticker on your glossy new car,
too! 

Don't tell me you love it for the editorial content; I won't believe 
you.

> 
> >Stands to reason you'd be a "Computer Shopper" kind of guy.  You 
> >probably think its an engineering journal.
> 
> That appears to be the problem -- William is hiring electrical
> engineers to build his Windows-loaded PCs. Actually, being that
> William is so utterly clueless about the PC market, he's probably
> being bilked by someone who realizes this and has given him false
> credentials in order to charge him for YET ANOTHER THING THAT WILLIAM
> DOESN'T WANT OR NEED BUT IS PAYING FOR REGARDLESS BECAUSE HE'S TOO
> STUPID AND INCOMPETENT TO PURCHASE ONLY WHAT HE WANTS, as we otherwise
> do.
> 

You mean I've been vicitimized by those home-PC-improvement scam 
artists praying on the elderly in big cities across America? 
Rapscallions!!  I've been mugged by a gang of electrical engineers!

Don't worry, though: I'm ordering a potion of silicon brew from my 
neighborhood witchdoctor that'll give 'em short circuits for life.

Now excuse me while I settle down to a quiet evening with the latest 
edition of......

> These OS/2 Zealots are an extremely helpless bunch. They can't seem to
> do anything, and by their own admission, aren't able to get what they
> want and need even though many more competent and knowledgeable people
> do so, and inform the helpless zealots how it's done.
> 
> Typical. No wonder why they're IBM customers, and customers that even
> IBM has told to sod off.

Having conversations with yourself again? How many of you are there, 
anyway?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: JOGIBA@email.msn.com                              16-Nov-99 20:50:09
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:14
Subj: Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES EX

From: "JOGIBA" <JOGIBA@email.msn.com>

IBM gave up and ordered 300,000 copies of Windows 2000 Professional.
Diablo <kinghell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:udcwOBg00GeJoV5kTSPS698QwfzE@4ax.com...
> I Here Their Is A Version Of Os/2 Warp 4 That Can Run
> Windows 95 Insted Of Win 3.1 And That People Who
> Have Been Inside IBM Have Actually Seen It Work
> But Can't Be Released Because Microsoft Wont Alow It
> I Would Love It If Some One Could Get A Copy Of It
> And Post It Here Or Give An FTP SITE To Where It
> Is At.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         17-Nov-99 01:49:15
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:14
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

David H. McCoy writes:

> Marty wrote:

>> 1] Less hardware intensive

> Not true. I was able to run NT 4.0 on the exact same hardware as OS/2 Warp
4.

Is your second sentence supposed to be some sort of proof for the claim
in the first sentence?  It isn't, given that you didn't say anything
about the hardware.  For all we know, it could have been more than
enough to run either.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               16-Nov-99 21:11:00
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:14
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451499

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Consistent with Tholen's recent justification for his snippage:

DT] Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:
DT] CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
DT] CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so inclined.
DT] I am deleting all but the most recent new text.

I am deleting all but the most recent new text.

If anyone doubts that Dave is playing an "infantile game" after reading
today's
digest, please let him know.  He'll probably try to use the fact that no one
has contacted him as evidence of a general agreement between himself and "his
readers", however to use his own words, he "would be unlikely to obtain a
statistically significant sample".  What will be obvious from reading the
digest is the fact that Dave hasn't responded to any articles with anything of
value.  This has come to be expected from him, however, and should not be a
surprise to anyone.

It seems he got his infantile wrath out of his system (after warning me "about
going down that path"), and has resumed taking my statements completely out of
context and responding to them inappropriately.  Again, no surprise for those
who have read a few of Tholen's postings.

Here's today's digest, with appropriate commentary by Dr. Sbaitso version 1.01
by Creative Labs:

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> If anyone doubts that Marty is playing an "infantile game" after reading 
> today's digest, please let me know.

DON'T STAND ON CEREMONY

> What won't be obvious from reading the digest is the fact that Marty 
> responded to the same article twice.

WHAT IS IT THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW?

> What alleged "hypocrisy and idiocy", Marty?

WHY DO YOU ASK THIS QUESTION?

> Why not leave it to one of them, Marty?

IT IS HARD TO EXPLAIN DAVE THOLEN

> Name one time, Marty, if you think you can.

I KNOW YOUR NAME IS DAVE THOLEN, THAT'S ALL

> Glatt has only humiliated himself.

I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOU

> What allegedly "conflicting, ignorant words", Marty?  Glatt can't even 
> recognize when additional information is present or absent.

AH , WHAT KIND OF ANSWER WOULD PLEASE YOU THE MOST?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         17-Nov-99 02:54:02
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:14
Subj: Re: Glatt's Hypocrisy and Illogic Exposed Once again

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Bennie Nelson writes:

> Jeff Glatt wrote:
 
>> And frankly, a cadre of kooks doesn't amount to anything

> Interesting that we get so much attention from Jeff Glatt.

Interesting that this OS/2 newsgroup gets so much attention from Windows
evangelists.

> Despite your words to the contrary, your many posts prove that this
> newsgroup, and the OS/2 supporters who post here amount to something
> that bugs you.

And it's not just Glatt.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         17-Nov-99 03:09:09
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:15
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>> In the absence of clouds, you would not expect it to rain.

> Answer the question: According to your statement, under what conditions
> does "implements" "....allow for either 'some' or 'all'
> functionality..."?

How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't addressed either of the
two simple tests.  I see you deleted enough of my response to alter the
context.  Let me restore it for you:

] In the absence of clouds, you would not expect it to rain.  Now, how
] does such a statement apply to the weather here in Hawaii, Lucien?
] Hint:  we have the presence of clouds.

Perhaps you'd like to tell me how the statement you keep pointing to
applies to the JDK sentence.

> Here is your statement again for context:

I don't need it again, Lucien, but I do find it ironic that you would
delete text to alter the context.

> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

And how does that concern the JDK sentence, Lucien, as you've repeatedly
insisted?

And now for the two simple tests again:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.                                              
]                                                                    
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.                                 
]                                                                    
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day? 
]                                                                    
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore 
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the  
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to 
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.   
]                                                                    
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.                                    

Test grade:  F.

Here's another little test for you, Lucien:

] #3:  It did rain today.
] 
] #4:  It didn't rain today.
] 
] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
] 
] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
] to be answered unambigiously.
] 
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".   
Or are you really that idiotic?                                    

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         17-Nov-99 03:41:04
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:15
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>> Curtis Bass writes:

>>>> Reread the material you snipped, Curtis:
>>>>
>>>> MT] I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>>>> MT] classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>> MT] so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>> MT] The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>>>> MT] AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.

>>>>> Mike, if you are reading this, what did you mean?

>>>> He meant what he wrote, Curtis.  Why ignore the written evidence?

>>> I did mean what I wrote, and what I wrote is that I can read the file 
>>> in question, which is javainuf.exe.

>> Illogical, Mike.  You wrote "I was able to read the file" and then
>> went on to reference what you read "The first file in classes.zip".

> You're leaving out the fact that I gave you several statistics about
> classes.zip itself, which I obtained by reading the file javainuf.exe.

You can get those statistics by reading the output of an unzip tool,
Mike.

> The point was to demonstrate that WinZip can read javainuf.exe

If that was your point, Mike, then why refer to the first and last
files in classes.zip?

> in a meaninful fashion (unlike LIST, which you keep comparing it to).

LIST can provide meaningful information, Mike.

> I might, for example, mention to you that I am able to read a
> particular book, then go on to cite information about the first
> chapter within that book.

Like the title of the first chapter.  And then the title of the
last chapter.  The book in this case would be classes.zip.

>> Remember, you were referring to classes.zip long before you ever
>> mentioned javainuf.exe; I had to coax that top-level filename out
>> of you.

> And, when I gave you the top level filename, that's the file we've been
> talking about.

The first file in javainuf.exe is not AbstractMethodError.class, Mike.
Tell me again that you were talking about javainuf.exe when you referred
to that class.

> Tell me, Dave, what's the most recent file I referred to *before* the
> paragraph you mention?

Irrelevant, Mike, given that I'm dealing with your paragraph, not the
one before it.

> Yes, it's javainuf.exe.

And in paragraphs before that, you were referring to classes.zip, Mike.

>>> That's what the written evidence indicates.  The only reason you are 
>>> confused is that you are, once again, taking statements out of context.

>> Incorrect, Mike.  See above for why.

> The above demonstrates exactly what I claimed -- that you're taking
> the statements out of context.

Impossible, given that AbstractMethodError.class is not the first file
in javainuf.exe, Mike.

> You claim that I'm talking about a file that I refer to *later* in the
> paragraph,

As is obviously the case, given your references to the first and last
files in classes.zip, Mike.

> and not the file that I refer to *earlier* in the conversation.

Even earlier in the conversation you referred to classes.zip, Mike.

> Chronology, Dave.

Something that you're ignoring, Mike.

> Learn it.

How ironic, coming from someone who hasn't learned it.

>>> Haven't you learned your lesson by now?

>> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't learned his lesson by now.

> Amusingly, here you are trying to claim that the subject of *my* sentence
> is what *you* misinterpreted it to be.  Tsk, tsk.

What alleged misinterpretation, Mike?  Are you denying that you wrote
the quotation above?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               16-Nov-99 23:20:10
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:15
Subj: (1/3) Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Illya Vaes wrote:
> 
> Marty wrote:
> >>>be punished?  These are the people that would be the first to go.
> >>That would be up to the powers that be at MS. The exact same ones that set
> >>the company on the course of screwing everyone in (and outside) the
> >>software industry. Why the punishers or the advocates of "give them what
> >>they deserve" should be held responsible for that and they should get away
> >>with *two* things now is beyond me...
> >Never said they should.
> 
> Saying "don't punish them for doing one thing" because otherwise they
*might*
> do another thing is letting them get away with doing two things.
> The sacking of "innocent employees" is apparantly real enough to base the
> verdict on, so it's real enough to consider them getting away with it too.
>
> >>Then again, others went to work for them because they saw so much dough
> >>coming in and were willing to throw away their principles by working for
> >>a company with such low ethics.
> >Please.  I didn't know that when you sign on to work for MS that you had to
> >discard your conscience as well.  I don't think that was in their contracts
> >for employment, or in anyone's mind when they signed on.  This view is a
> >bit extreme and unrealistic.
> 
> Of course it's not in their contracts. But they cannot have been unaware of
> the lack of ethics of the company they started to work for, and as you gave
an
> example of a friend, they went and worked for them anyway.

And if you read the example, you'd know that the new employee didn't feel that
his organization had unethical practices or that he was getting involved in a
sinister, criminal act by servicing several of their office LANs.  I hope you
are starting to realize how absurd this angle is that you are persuing.

> And as David Raoul Derbes put so eloquently, they got the benefits of the
> companies tactics until now, so why wouldn't they get the disadvantages etc.
> too?

The stockholders (be they employees or not) got those advantages too.  Does
that make them criminals?  Many stockholders merely speculate in the market
and
have no particular interest in the companies in which they invest (other then
their recently stock price activity).  Do they deserve to get what's coming to
them from the profit they've made off of MS's crimes?

> You're saying MS employees should be shielded from the things they have
> inflicted upon employees of other companies without you stepping up to the
> plate to defend those.

How does a guy who services an office LAN inflict anything on anyone?
 
> >The anti-trust laws apply to corporations. Corporations, in the eyes of the
> >law are effectively their own people. They can be held accountable for
> >crimes and even go bankrupt independently of those people who comprise
> >them. Anti-trust laws have no application to individuals.
> 
> In other words, no-one can be held accountable for anti-trust offences,
since
> that would mean individuals would be punished for what "the company" has
done.
> Just toss out all laws governing business then...

Corporations are their own "people" under the law.  This does shield the
employees, but it's the law.  That's one of the big advantages to being
incorporated over having a proprietorship.  If a proprietor goes bankrupt,
his/her credit rating is ruined and his/her personal property is confiscated
to
pay off remaining debts.  Not so when corporations go bankrupt.

> >Sorry, but hitmen and drug trafficking have little applicability to what we
> >are discussing.
> 
> All illegal "companies" also have legal fronts and have people working for
> them legally and innocently, yet you have no problem blowing up those
> companies because of some perceived difference in the exact crime that was
> committed by the company...

So this "software thing" that MS does is just a "front" for their world
domination plans that you alluded to earlier?

> I hope you or your beloved ones never find themselves working for a company
> that turns out to be related to an illegal operation that is busted and find
> your/themselves out of a job.

As do I.

> >>>>How many of Al Capone's people (which must have included a lot of
> >>>>legally employed people) have lost their jobs when he was nailed? Should
> >>>>he not have been nailed?
> >>(no answer here, obviously)
> >Obviously.
> 
> IOW, those _legally_ employed for someone that does illegal operation A can
> screw themselves and live off the street, while those legally employed for
> someone that does illegal operation B must be "defended" at all cost and
> _therefore_ the latter someone must be allowed to continue illegal operation
> B.
> Not punishing is allowing to continue, and not allowing to continue is
> punishing and *will* have consequences for some people.

You neatly neglect the fact that the company who performed operation B has
monopoly control over the market (as the courts will determine) and can cause
major title waves in it, taking many businesses down with them.

> >>OK then, then look at the other option, *not* punishing MS.
> >>What is accomplished with that?
> >Nothing, which is why I haven't suggested that course of action.
> 
> Yes you have. The mere word "punishing", with *your* interpretation of what
> that "must" entail, has spurred this discussion where you take the view of
> their punishment being not desirable. You (said you) want them not to be
> punished for what they have done. In effect, you want the law to become a
> sharade.

I want the law to find a way to remove their monopoly hold on the market and
prevent the situation from recurring without destroying those who depend on
their products.  Why is that so hard to understand?

> >>They'll have gotten the signal that they can bloody well do as they
> >>please, that's what. And no need to be acting as if they're law-abiding
> >>either.
> >As I said before, they can be handcuffed (prevented from causing future
> >harm) without being handcuffed and beaten.
> 
> *Anything* that will *effectively* prevent them from ever causing future
harm
> *will* be punishment for a company that is completely emersed into their
> illegal and unethical behaviour.
> And the little detail of not being allowed to enjoy the fruits of your
illegal
> activities is rather important in law too.
> 
> >>Choosing against a punishment for MS is choosing for it becoming the next
> >>US government. They already have far too much a hold on essential
> >>infrastructure and they will use whatever means they have to increase
> >>*their* power, and they won't even have to mumble things about "innovate"
> >>and "consumers" etc.
> >This is quite a paranoid view.
> 
> No it's not. It's just the logical conclusion of completely free reign for
> unethical people who don't have to answer to anybody.
> Have you seen what an impact the oil crisis had on an oil-based society like
> the US? Can you imagine how it could be if there wasn't "just" a cartel of
> bickering arabic countries that called the shots, but *one* company that can
> (and will) focus on just their own profits and power?

Unfortunately for your example, alternative operating systems are far more
available than oil was in the 70's during the oil crisis.

> That's why Standard Oil was broken up, and Microsoft is dangerously close to 

> that position in the "new oil" that the US possibly relies on even more than 

> on real oil. They've shown to be ruthless and would punish their likes in an 

> instant if *they* were the ones calling the shots instead of the court, no 
> consideration would be given to "innocent" grunt workers.

Any corporation would do the same given the same opportunity.  That's the
fault
of the profit incentive.

> You give them the position *and* the signal that they can do whatever they
> want, and they *will* use it and you *will* be governed by them, whether or
> not in theory Washington D.C. still is in power.

The paranoia resumes.

> >>A[p]art from the obvious slowness of the judicial system, government and
> >>politics (how long do you guess the "extreme freedom to make a buck" and
> >>pro-MS lobby have held up actions?), there is nothing in the law that says
> >>this adagium. Should a murderer not be tried because the police couldn't
> >>find him in a month. Or if his victim hasn't died yet after having been
> >>poisoned with a slow yet lethal substance?
> >We're not dealing with murderers and poison.
> 
> A human murderer murders humans.
> A corporate murderer murders corporations.
> Microsoft is truly a corporate murderer.

A more alarmist name for a military base is a Kill-Bot Factory.  What's your
point?

> >Microsoft is not currently residing in a holding cell, either.
> 
> No, they're out on bail in this case (the overturning of the constraining
> order over W98 is in effect letting them out of the holding cell while being
> tried). But in the Java case, they're definitely in the holding cell.
> 
> >>>The fact that it had to "find a fact" to now start
> >>>applying laws to Microsoft demonstrates that the government had no
> >>>problem with what MS was doing in the past.
> >>Rubbish, and you know it.
> >If I knew it to be rubbish then I wouldn't have stated it.
> 
> There's always the question of being aware of things and trying appeasement
> before waging an all-out war that costs the taxpayers a lot of money (always
> consideration nr.1 to self-serving US people, it would seem).
> Would you have wanted the British not to fight the Germans after becoming
> aware of the problem and unsuccesfully trying appeasement?
> Would you have wanted the US not to fight in WW2 at great costs?
> "Hey man, you waited to long, so just let them have what they violently and
> illegally made their own"
> And you speak of justice??

Ah... the inevitable Nazi reference.  It's all downhill from here.  I would
like to point out that the circumstances are *quite* different here.

> >>Like I said, the government can do no good. If they bud in (too) soon,
> >>they get fried, but when they stay back in the hope (according to
> >>right-wingers the "knowledge" ofcourse) that "the market" will handle it
> >>(yeah, monopolies sure tend to break themselves up...) and finally decide
> >>it doesn't, they haven't stepped in right away and therefore have
> >>forfeited their right to interfere. Yeah, right.
> >The government can literally do whatever it wants.
> 
> Rubbish. There are many more checks on them than on MS,

If that were true (which it is not), it would be the government's own fault.

> and you're advocating that even those checks that are in place for MS should
> be ignored (since after flagging a checkpoint, you should execute some
response
> and you don't want the response).

I'm not advocating ignoring them at all.  Please reread toward the top of this
article if you still believe so.

> >The right thing to do is a different matter entirely.
> 
> So have your representative change the law to "any US corp can do whatever
the
> hell it pleases (especially if it means it dominates other countries)".
> That would be a whole lot more ethical and "just" than the road chosen by
MS,
> trying to lobby the DOJ out of budget because they have the gall to come
after
> them, the holy MS.
> 
> >>The laws in question are older than Gates and Ballmer together.
> >The charges are quite recent, however, compared to the time the actions
> >were perpetrated.
> 
> Rubbish. The charges have been brought immediately. Just because the courts
> take so long (partly, like someone else already stated and you ofcourse
> ignored, because of all the stays the MS lawyers have been succesfully
trying
> to get in order to try to get a fait accompli so that people like you can
say
> "this punishment will not undo this").
> 
> >>>>In that case, there are at least two meanings for the word "government".
> >>>>One is "the way this country is run and how power is divided", the other
> >>>>is "the day to day administration and legislature".
> >>>>The latter can break its own rules and be brought to justice for it by
> >>>>part of the former (of course, it can easily change the law later).
> >>>That's what checks and balances are all about, if I'm reading you
> >>>correctly, but that has little to do with what is occurring here.  This
> >>>also doesn't change the fact that the judicial system shares
> >>>theoretically 1/3 of the governing ability of the US, and is therefore,
> >>>just as much a part of the government as any of the other branches.
> >>You're just trying to redefine the judicial system as part of the
> >>government.
> >Perhaps you are using the word "government" differently. What, precisely,
> >do you mean by "government".  To me it is the totality of the three
> >branches.
> 
> I already explained that above, and in your reaction you did differntiate
> between the judicial system and "the government": you said "[it] is [] as
much
> a part of the government as [] the other branches".
> IOW, it's not the same.

Sorry, but this statement:
You're just trying to redefine the judicial system as part of the government.

is quite non-sensical.  The judicial system is one of three branches of
government in the US.

> >>If it were that way, there would have been no need to have a government
> >>(Justice Department) attorney present a case before a judge; MS would just
> >>have been convicted.
> >The branches of the government have a rigid system of checks and balances
> >preventing such "justice by decree" from happening.
> 
> That's what I said.
> IOW, this lawsuit is not tried by "the government".

It is being tried by a part of the government.  The government being the
superset of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.

> It's brought by the government, and tried by the impartial justice system.
> So stop trying to act as if it's the bad old govermint attacking poor old MS
> on some bogus claim.

That's not what I'm stating at all.

> >>They are related, by accident, but not at all the same.
> >>The courts are only (*only*) concerned with law enforcement. What's in the
> >>law is irrelevant until at least the verdict (if a verdict may be given
> >>that addresses the concerns of the law itself, then it may come into it at
> >>that point).
> >The court is as concerned with upholding the spirit of the laws as it is

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               16-Nov-99 23:20:10
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:15
Subj: (2/3) Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

> >with upholding the letter of the laws, therefore, the laws themselves are
> >quite a relevant concern.
> 
> The spirit of the laws, when determining guilt, only come into it when the
law
> itself isn't clear, when it's ambigous. Only then will a case find itself to
> the Supreme Court, and there it will be decided what the intent of the law
> was, thereby establishing jurisprudence.
> In lower courts, the spirit of the law _may_ come into it when it's time for
> the verdict (the punishment!), not when deciding guilt.
> 
> >>What is to be put *into* the law is upto the government, your
> >>representatives.
> >Ah.. so you mean the legislature when you refer to "government"?
> 
> I'd already explained that. It would come in handy if you would actually
read
> what I wrote.

And it would come in handy if we both used consistent, correct terminology.

> >>>Yes, but in the case of murder, the only person punished is the
> >>>murderer.
> >>His/her mother/father loses a son/daughter.
> >>His/her brother/sister loses a brother/sister.
> >>His/her wife/husband loses a husband/wife.
> >>His/her child(ren) lose(s a) father/mother.
> >>etc.
> 
> No answer, so I take it you agree that more people than the perpetrator get
to
> be punished for his/her crime.

It wasn't relevant enough to deem a response.

> >>>In the case of Microsoft, many people will be punished for
> >>>the transgressions of the few.  This is not just.
> >>Apart from the debatable innocence of a lot of MS employees:
> >Debatable innocence??  You're carrying this a bit too far.
> 
> No I'm not. Like you yourself gave an example of a friend, plenty of people
> fully knew what kind of a company they went to work for and did it anyway.

You obviously have read your own slant into my example as I have not stated
that, nor is it the case.

> Obviously the money (or other benefits) must have been interesting enough to
> offset any disadvantages (working for a low-ethics company) and risks (the
> company getting nailed _and_ they suffering any consequences because of it).
> And they can still go to some other company, there's plenty of need of IT
> people. Maybe they are (still) confident they will win, or maybe they take a
> positive view that MS will come out of it being nailed for the better.
> 
> >>Is it just that the company will get away with *punishing* a lot of
> >>companies and people *without* so much as a trial?
> >Heretofore the government has let them do so.
> 
> And you did too. Not a peep.

I didn't have any access to their proprietary information to know what was
going on.

> But when the gov says "this is it, now it's enough, we tried to ask you
nicely
> but you said 'screw you'", you are up in arms.
> Very consistent, very just.

You haven't bothered comprehending my position I see.

> >>Is it just that they have made a lot of money by riding the wave of crime?
> >The government is currently in the process of determining if any crimes
> >were committed.
> 
> AFAIK, the 'findings of fact' were the determination of guilt and now the
> 'findings of law' will follow to determine the actions to be taken.
> The verdict will only summarize those together.
> 
> >>Is it just that there will be no stopping the company after such a no
> >>punishment decision?
> >Prevention is a better alternative to punishment.
> 
> The illegal actions cannot be prevented anymore, they have already been
> perpetrated. They must be punished.
> Of course, just punishing may not be enough to prevent repetition (and MS
> advocates used to argue that the $1 million fine per day that MS might have
> had to pay earlier would be "a small price for the money and power the fined
> actions would bring MS", so even your feared fine may not prevent it), so I
> guess prevention _will_ come into it.
> But at the very least, the benefits the offender has enjoyed because of its
> offense must be taken away.
> If you steal and are caught, you're not just (trying to be) prevented of
doing
> it again, you lose the money too. I don't see why MS should be treated
> differently and be allowed to keep the money.

Because there is a lot more riding on MS than a common thief.

> >Again the paranoia.  Why would MS have any interest in governing the US?
> >It's too expensive and would really hurt their profit margin for very
> >little gain.
> 
> Power. Gates hasn't been that interested in money, it's all about power.
> If he has one quality, it's that he's willing to forfeit short-term profit
and
> money to reel in long-term power. Witness the near-giveaway of Windows with
> DOS, of Office with Windows and the real giveaway of Internet Explorer.
> That hurt their profit margin a lot more at the time.

And led to a greater dependence on his flagship product, Winxx.  It was a
gamble that came out in his favor financially.

> And how can you say "it's too expensive" to govern the US when you also say
> "the government can do anything it pleases"?

Might I remind you of the x trillion dollar national debt?  Even the
government
is smart enough to realize that there are certain things it shouldn't do (such
as crank out more dollar bills to pay the debt) to solve its problems.  Sure
it
could attempt these actions, but it would be quite detrimental.  Besides,
governing the US creates far too much overhead for a software company that
just
wants to earn as much profit as possible.

> At least the present government has been chosen and is _trying_ to act for 
> the good of the country, not for their own power and bottom line.

To which country are you referring?  Certainly not the US.

> A company could extort all kinds of profit out of the country, according 
> to your "can do anything", so it might be expensive but many times more 
> profitable.

Right, and then after the bloody revolution what will happen?  With every
action comes a cost.  Just because something can be done doesn't mean that it
should or it would benefit the doer.

> >>>>People losing their jobs should complain to Gates, Ballmer, Silverberg,
> >>>>Maples, etc.
> >>>"Do it to us" should mean "stop this from happening again," not "hurt
> >>>us".  They can be handcuffed without being handcuffed and beaten.
> >>"Stop us or stuff your laws"????? That's what you're saying.
> >No, I'm saying "stop this from happening again," not "hurt us".
> 
> I'm talking about what MS has been "saying" with their actions, and
> interpreting what you are saying *MS was saying*.
> I know that *you* are saying "stop this from happening", but *MS* has been
> saying "stop us or sod off".
> The "us" in there always was MS, not the US people.
> 
> >They can be handcuffed without being handcuffed and beaten.
> 
> You've said it so many times, I guess you have a fool-proof plan for doing
> this. Let's all hear it then.

I don't have enough information or expertise at my disposal to make such a
determination, and neither do you.

> >>*They* decide what they do. Just because the opportunity is there, doesn't
> >>mean you're forced to do something. *They* are in the position of stopping
> >>"this" from happening again, and they keep showing that they *don't want
> >>to stop it*. That is exactly what is saying "nail us or sod off".
> >The government can prevent them from executing monopoly control on the
> >market without "punishing" MS.
> 
> A) No.

I suppose that depends on how you define "punishing".

> B) MS *have* already done that, so the US Laws say they *must* be punished.
> C) Exactly the anti-trust laws were the way the government has tried to
>    prevent companies from executing monopoly control. If you take the
>    sanctions away from them, then you are saying they cannot try the
>    prevention.
> 
> >>Too bad the government just cannot sod off.
> >>They only have themselves to blame. I am sorry for all those at MS that
> >>must suffer the consequences innocently (a lot less than you're implying,
> >>I'm sure), but if they (really) wanted to prevent that (and not just roll
> >>in dough and feel triumphant because they squashed another upstart with
> >>real innovation), they should have organised a mutiny.
> >That is too laughable to even earn a response (other than this one).
> 
> I guess you adhere to the school of thought that says "orders are orders, no
> matter what they are".

That depends on what the "orders" are.  If the orders are, "make this piece of
code work", then sure.  If the orders are, "keep this LAN operational", then
sure.  If the orders are, "Kill that pregnant mother and her small child",
then
no.  I hope you can see the difference.

> And I thought US people believed in the self-determination of human
> individuals and accompanying responsibility...
>
> >>Punishing them may mean being broken up in such a manner that competition
> >>is restored, or otherwise all participants have equal chances.
> >I would view that as prevention, not punishment.
> 
> I have no problem with that. I can view your "prevention" as (part of) my
> "punishment", but you seem to have a problem with my "punishment" as part of
> your "prevention".

If they are one in the same, then we are arguing semantics.

> >Punishment would be deliberately disadvantaging them with respect to
> >competitors.
> 
> Why not? They've used illegal tactics to advantage themselves with respect
to
> competitors. Doing nothing with the advantageous position of MS is only
> rewarding them and prohibits free competition and therefore doesn't prevent
it
> from happening again because it only sustains what has already been
happening.

Which is why I have not recommended that course of action.

> >>OTOH, they might also be forced to pay millions (just a fraction of what
> >>they extorted from the biz) which may eg. be used to finance upstarts of
> >>keep suffering competitors in business (and *don't complain about them
> >>getting money, because *they too* have innocent janitors that are the
> >>first to go when monopolist bully MS, as they themselves said, "smile
> >>while we pull the trigger"; ah, poor MS).
> >And who decides exactly which companies receive this "aide"?
> 
> I don't know, that's a practical matter. The ministry of economical affairs?

On the contrary, it's a very impractical and implausible matter.

> >How is that fair to the companies that don't receive said "aide"?  It's
> >still playing favorites and is ultimately destructive.
> 
> It's just as fair as all other kinds of fincancial aids like job programs,
> attracting high-wages companies, ....
> It's not playing favourites if you use it to offset disadvantages. I didn't
> say "finance upstarts" for nothing. They are at a great disadvantage against
> behemoths who've already sewn up the market and shut out newcomers.

And what about the recently established upstarts that earned their current
position without aide?  What of them being disadvantaged by an upstart that
has
received such aide?

> Even your beloved "innocent employees" of MS might start their own companies
> with their ideas and inject some real innovation into the biz again. Or do
you
> think they are innocent and mindless drones?

They can be innocent without being mindless drones.  Amazing how prejudiced
you
are.

> >>>Perhaps I just have more sympathy for working class folks.
> >>I have too. There's a lot more working class folks at non-MS companies
> >>than at MS, and they have a lot tougher job (or a lot less jobs!) with un
> >>unpunished MS.
> >>You're reasoning "I don't want to spend this dime" even though spending it
> >>will bring you ten bucks.
> >How many more jobs are riding on the assumption that they will be
> >supporting MS products in the future?
> 
> MS products aren't going away, and when things change the education
companies
> will have a ball.
> If there's more diversity among products, more people will be needed to
> support it (which is used as a cost argument for "standardising") and more
> jobs will be available.
> You seem to be stuck into some kind of MS vision by assuming many more jobs
> are riding on the assumption. I think you're very wrong.

In the short term, I am right.  In the long term, you may be right.

> >For a comparison, how many jobs were riding on supporting Caldera's DOS
> >when it was disadvantaged?
> 
> Disadvantaged? You mean pushed out of the market by MS. The actions we
> shouldn't be punishing according to you. That's what I said, that "the MS
way"
> has cost jobs, and you want to perpetuate it.

Not at all.  If you read my responses you'd know that is not what I am
advocating.

> >>>If it were my job on the line, this angry mob style of justice would
> >>>prompt me to countersue the government.
> >>Selfcentered. We're talking on a society-wide scale here. Should all of
> >>society (and not just US!) suffer because you happened to have taken a job
> >>"innocently" at a company that "pulls the trigger" on other companies
> >>"while smiling"?
> >It's very amusing how you appropriate guilt to MS employees.
> 
> By definition, the guilt for MS's actions lies with MS employees. The only
> part where you may be right to some extent is which employees those were,
but
> alas the law cannot make that distinction for the company, so it has to do
> that itself.

So you're saying that the big-wigs can point out Janitor Joe as the guilty
party in MS and throw him to the government's pack of wolves?  I don't think
it
works that way.

> Why haven't you said onec you hated those in charge at MS for putting their
> employees in such a position?

Because none of it affects me personally.

> >> Just countersue the government and prove me right again.
> >Sorry, but I am a guilty employee of a different behemoth monopolist (IBM).
> 
> And I used to hate that at least as much. IBM has learned a lot though, and
> that was because of it being under fire from the government.
> MS, however, hasn't learnt one bit yet from being under fire; on the
contrary,
> they just take it to more extremes. There comes a point where enough is
enough
> and the time of learning yourself is over. IBM didn't reach that, MS has.
> 
> >>It's always the damned government. "I just wished there were anarchy"
> >>(until it meant you not getting any roads built for you, or no well-fare
> >>when you've been made redundant, or the "russkis" had come barging into
> >>the door because there wasn't a government to stop them).

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               16-Nov-99 23:20:10
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:15
Subj: (3/3) Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

> >>There are rules in a society, for better *and* for worse. What's better
> >>for an individual is often worse for the rest.
> >>Live with it or go live on Mars.
> >You've not demonstrated how punishing MS would be beneficial.  The US has
> 
> Yes I have.
> It will show them that they cannot do all they want.
> It will show them and the people that the laws should be abided and
> perpetrators *will* be caught.
> I've also (first) not ruled out that part of the punishment should be
actions
> that will prevent the illegal actions from continuing and being repeated and
> (later) have said that those actions *should* be a part of any punishment.
> And the fact remains that a punishment need not be beneficial other than
> showing that you will not be able to enjoy the fruits of illegal actions.

But I thought we were going to fund upstarts...  What you are saying is all
fine and good, but the economic impacts of any such actions need to be
considered (which was my original point).

> >nearly always favored the rights of the individual over that of the larger
> >group.  Nazis are allowed to conduct peaceful public speeches.  The courts
> >would rather let a guilty man go free than convict an innocent man.
> >Demonstrations of this fact occur throughout US history.
> 
> Blahblahblah.
> This is not about an individual and it's not some"body" innocent either.

Legally, a corporation is its own "individual".

> There should be no punishment for someone being found innocent. There should
> be for someone guilty. You can argue all you want about the beneficiality of
> it, but someone found guilty must be punished in some way. Getting a reward
> should be reserved for those behaving (more than) well.

"Blahblahblah."

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            16-Nov-99 23:45:14
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:15
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com>

In article <383207D3.DB78E58F@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
>"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>> 
>> In article <3830C434.73278ED3@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
>> >"uno@40th.com" wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Who here, if they were just starting today, would install OS2
>> >> as the sole (99% use) OS?
>> >
>> >Me.
>> >
>> >> If you have to guts to admit it, at least say why you'd use OS2 (avoid
>> >> cliches if possible) instead of say, NT4.
>> >
>> >1] Less hardware intensive
>> 
>> Not true. I was able to run NT 4.0 on the exact same hardware as OS/2 Warp
4.
>
>That doesn't disprove my claim.  I am not able to smoothly operate NT 4 on my
>486/100, but Warp 4 runs perfectly well and is quite responsive.

You haven't proved your claimed. We've both run OS/2 Warp 4 and NT. My 
contention is that I've seen them both behave well on similar hardware. 
Furthermore, the box specs are similar. I don't care what you say because I 
KNOW FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that they run equally well on the same hardware.

Of course, you are the person claiming that Partition Magic takes 100 megs.
Why 
should anyone believe you?

>> >2] I prefer the GUI
>> 
>> I agree.
>> 
>> >3] Availability of most *nix software, including X itself
>> 
>> NT has this and the full complement of Win32.
>
>Yes and no.  NT has X emulators and much of the *nix stuff has been ported. 
>OS/2 has X servers and most *nix stuff has been ported.

What Unix program is available on OS/2 and not NT? Prove what you say instead 
of just declaring it.

>> >4] Powerful REXX shell scripting language built in
>> 
>> NT has scripting host that can use Rexx as well as other scripting
language.
>
>Which is why I specified "built-in", meaning everyone who installs OS/2 has
it,
>so it is safe to use for installation scripts and whatnot.  You can't assume
>that REXX is present on an NT system.

Considering you can get Rexx and a other scripting languages that are NOT 
available under OS/2, it seems that OS/2 is at a disadvantage.  I'll rather 
have many options available and pick and choose than one built-in option.

But as you and other OS/2 users have demostrated time and time again, having 
many options do not interest you.

>> >5] Easy to configure and maintain
>> 
>> NT 4.0 has proven far easier to configure and maintain for me. Much less
has
>> gone wrong with NT 4 and since more hardware is supported, setup is easier.
>
>YMMV.

Indeed. But clearly even you must insist that installing say a device is
easier 
when that driver is included in the box than buying the item and trying to
find 
a driver?

>> >6] Can't catch any of the common Win virii
>> 
>> But OS/2 can catch DOS virii. NT is resistant to most Windows virii if you
>> don't run in admin mode. In the two years I've run Windows NT(now W2k) I
>> haven't caught a single virus.
>
>In all my years running OS/2 I haven't caught a DOS virus.  The DOS virus
dies
>(in memory at least) when the DOS session is closed and NT's DOS session is
>just as vulnerable.

Not at all. A virus under OS/2 in a DOS box can erase system files. Under NT
in 
a user or power user mode, the virus cannot do this.

>> >7] Runs any application that I want to use
>> 
>> Runs any app I want to use and many that I may wish to try.
>
>YMMV.

Fraid not. More apps is an absolute and NT has more apps.

>> >8] Smaller hard drive footprint
>> 
>> If Partition Magic takes 100 megs, then NT 4 must take a gig.
>
>:-)  Yeah yeah.
>
>My installed OS/2 system with my base functional apps was, in fact, smaller
>than my NT installation was with similar apps installed.

What size? You again seem to be short on specifics.

>> >(and just to piss off David)
>> >9] Cracks RC5 keys 5% faster on my current hardware
>> 
>> Doesn't piss me off. :-) I'm happy poor old OS/2 can crack RC keys.
>
>Glad to hear it.
>

Indeed.

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               17-Nov-99 00:01:05
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:15
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> 
> In article <383207D3.DB78E58F@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
> >"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <3830C434.73278ED3@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
> >> >"uno@40th.com" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Who here, if they were just starting today, would install OS2
> >> >> as the sole (99% use) OS?
> >> >
> >> >Me.
> >> >
> >> >> If you have to guts to admit it, at least say why you'd use OS2 (avoid
> >> >> cliches if possible) instead of say, NT4.
> >> >
> >> >1] Less hardware intensive
> >>
> >> Not true. I was able to run NT 4.0 on the exact same hardware as OS/2
Warp 4.
> >
> >That doesn't disprove my claim.  I am not able to smoothly operate NT 4 on
my
> >486/100, but Warp 4 runs perfectly well and is quite responsive.
> 
> You haven't proved your claimed. We've both run OS/2 Warp 4 and NT. My
> contention is that I've seen them both behave well on similar hardware.
> Furthermore, the box specs are similar. I don't care what you say because I
> KNOW FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that they run equally well on the same
hardware.

My claim was to substantiate why I would choose OS/2 over NT.  As such, it is
proven out of MY personal experience.  I have proven to myself that as you
approach the low end of hardware, OS/2 comes out decisively on top.  My
equipment tends to approach the low end of hardware, hence this is a concern
to
me.

> Of course, you are the person claiming that Partition Magic takes 100 megs.
Why
> should anyone believe you?

Touche' John Ominar.  And you claimed 3Dfx cards weren't supported under OS/2.

> >> >2] I prefer the GUI
> >>
> >> I agree.
> >>
> >> >3] Availability of most *nix software, including X itself
> >>
> >> NT has this and the full complement of Win32.
> >
> >Yes and no.  NT has X emulators and much of the *nix stuff has been ported.
> >OS/2 has X servers and most *nix stuff has been ported.
> 
> What Unix program is available on OS/2 and not NT?  Prove what you say
instead
> of just declaring it.

Enlightenment.  XF86 itself.  Gimp (it was barely ported to Win32 as I
understand).  If I used more *nix apps, I'd name more.

> >> >4] Powerful REXX shell scripting language built in
> >>
> >> NT has scripting host that can use Rexx as well as other scripting
language.
> >
> >Which is why I specified "built-in", meaning everyone who installs OS/2 has 
it,
> >so it is safe to use for installation scripts and whatnot.  You can't
assume
> >that REXX is present on an NT system.
> 
> Considering you can get Rexx and a other scripting languages that are NOT
> available under OS/2, it seems that OS/2 is at a disadvantage.  I'll rather
> have many options available and pick and choose than one built-in option.

Which scripting languages can you use in NT that you can't use in OS/2?  Prove
what you say instead of just declaring it.

> But as you and other OS/2 users have demostrated time and time again, having
> many options do not interest you.

Not when we already have the right tools for the job.

> >> >5] Easy to configure and maintain
> >>
> >> NT 4.0 has proven far easier to configure and maintain for me. Much less
has
> >> gone wrong with NT 4 and since more hardware is supported, setup is
easier.
> >
> >YMMV.
> 
> Indeed. But clearly even you must insist that installing say a device is
easier
> when that driver is included in the box than buying the item and trying to
find
> a driver?

I find that it's easier to install something when I can control the process, a
feeling I don't get when I use Winxx.

> >> >6] Can't catch any of the common Win virii
> >>
> >> But OS/2 can catch DOS virii. NT is resistant to most Windows virii if
you
> >> don't run in admin mode. In the two years I've run Windows NT(now W2k) I
> >> haven't caught a single virus.
> >
> >In all my years running OS/2 I haven't caught a DOS virus.  The DOS virus
dies
> >(in memory at least) when the DOS session is closed and NT's DOS session is
> >just as vulnerable.
> 
> Not at all. A virus under OS/2 in a DOS box can erase system files. Under NT 
in
> a user or power user mode, the virus cannot do this.

If a virus attempts direct physical disk manipulations in OS/2 (which are
necessary to overwrite boot sectors) it will be intercepted by the operating
system.  Try it some time.

> >> >7] Runs any application that I want to use
> >>
> >> Runs any app I want to use and many that I may wish to try.
> >
> >YMMV.
> 
> Fraid not. More apps is an absolute and NT has more apps.

Runs any application that I want to use, and since the point was why I would
be
using OS/2 instead of NT your "factoid" does little to counter that.

> >> >8] Smaller hard drive footprint
> >>
> >> If Partition Magic takes 100 megs, then NT 4 must take a gig.
> >
> >:-)  Yeah yeah.
> >
> >My installed OS/2 system with my base functional apps was, in fact, smaller
> >than my NT installation was with similar apps installed.
> 
> What size? You again seem to be short on specifics.

I have comfortably installed OS/2 v4 on a partition of 200MB.  I came close
with 150MB but networking pushed it slightly over the top.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: andrew@netneurotic.de                             17-Nov-99 06:48:02
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:15
Subj: OS/2 on large hard disks

From: andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm)

Somebody sent the required file to me a month ago, but I seem to have
lost it. Now I have finally found the time to install OS/2 once again on
my Intel machine. Looking for the right link on the IBM website I found
nothing. Could somebody point me to the right file please?

-- 
Fan of Woody Allen
User of MacOS, BeOS, LinuxPPC
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          17-Nov-99 06:00:23
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:15
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451499

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Marty
>If anyone doubts that Dave is playing an "infantile game" after reading
today's
>digest, please let him know.  He'll probably try to use the fact that no one
>has contacted him as evidence of a general agreement between himself and "his
>readers"

I always get a huge chuckle out of his direct "admonishments" to his
"readers" to pay attention to some moronically foolish display of his
pedantic tripe -- as if anyone is reading his nonsense other than the
people who are telling him what a dimwit he truly is. (Well ok, Bennie
and Karel seem to be "impressed" with his "intellect", but then, it
obviously doesn't take much to impress them -- apparently you just
have to exhibit a boner for a particular, oddball niche product).

But then, that's all part of his mental illness. His megalomania
actually has him convinced that there are people who take him
seriously rather than view him as the incompetent, technically
illiterate, mentally disturbed clown that he is.

I believe that you missed some of his funniest COOA vaudeville
routines, such as the time he insisted that Mike Timbol contact
Tholen's mythical lawyer to provide an address to which this alleged
lawyer was supposedly going to send some papers to sue Mike for some
alleged "libel". That was hysterically amusing. (In fact, he
threatened me with the same, and I'm STILL laughing about his
pathetically empty threats. The truly funny thing is that Mike told
Tholen that the lawyer should be able to find Mike's address on his
own, and Tholen insisted that Mike instead needed to provide it. Then,
when Tholen threatened to sue me, and I mocked the foolish moron like
I usually do by asking him for a contact address for his lawyer so I
could send him my address, Tholen insisted that I should be able to
find his lawyer's address on my own. HAHAHAHAH!!! Yes, Tholen is THAT
openly and amazingly stupid).

As we all know, Tholen is just an imbecile with nothing inside of his
exceedingly ugly head except hot air.

Only a moron would regard anything he says as having any substance
whatsoever.

>Dave hasn't responded to any articles with anything of value.

If you want to derive some value from Tholen's posts, you'll have to
print them out, wad them up, and then use them in the bathroom.

Other than that, they're only good for documenting his inconsistency,
hypocrisy, lack of common sense, plodding "intellect", and foolish,
unsophisticated, pedantic nonsense, as I document in my "digest" of
his posts

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mcbrides@erols.com                                16-Nov-99 19:27:25
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:15
Subj: Re: I am worried about our future generations...

From: mcbrides@erols.com (Jerry McBride)

In article <3831EDB2.BD55DB28@nls.net>,
"David D. Huff Jr." <huffd@nls.net> wrote:
>Every time one of these whiny-ass MicroSloth crusaders writes me
>personally and spews forth revisionist history.
>
>The last one claims that IBM helped to setup MicroSloth at the
>anti-trust hearings. I thought that was called testimony now they call
>it setting someone up.
>

It's call "spin doctoring"... :')

>Part of the letter I received discussed a part of computer history that
>happened twenty years ago. And this brash young fellow proceeds to tell
>me how I have it all wrong. Piss on you I was here I lived it! It just
>hasn't been the same since the trial. All of these weirdos are coming
>out of the closet and counter posting or writing direct about
>everything. It looks like the devil wants to have his day and his
>minions are doing their best to put on a full court press. But dang guys
>you aint gona change my mind. I think maybe I should play a more active
>part in your re-education.
>
>Even with all the in-fighting and back-biting between the OS2 dudes and
>dudetts we look pretty normal compared to most of the stupidity embraced
>by the opposition.
>

Damn! I couldn't have said that better! Cheers, Dave.


--

*******************************************************************************

*            Sometimes, the BEST things in life really ARE free...           
*
*       Get a FREE copy of NetRexx 1.151 for your next java project at:      
*
*                                                                            
*
*                      GET IT NOW! WHILE IT'S STILL FREE!                    
*
*                                                                            
*
*                     http://www2.hursley.ibm.com/netrexx                    
*
*******************************************************************************


/----------------------------------------\
| From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
|         mcbrides@erols.com             |
\----------------------------------------/

--

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TEAM-NETREXX (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          17-Nov-99 06:12:23
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:15
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>>>William Sonna
>>>Computer Shopper =  Large type, glossy ads, superficial reviews and 
>>>short sentences.

>>jeff glatt
>>hahahahahah!!! Glossy ads?? Apparently, you've either never read the
>>magazine (which is likely since you obviously don't know what a VAR
>>is), or you never read past the first 30 pages or so.
 
>HaHaHaHaHaha!!!!  YES!  Glossy adds! Shiny adds! Lots 'n lots of 'em!!

Uh no. What you obviously have there is a copy of "Big, Bouncing
Bosoms" magazine. You've been stuck all alone with your computer for
so long, doing altogether unnatural things with your beloved, oddball
niche OS, that you can no longer tell the difference between a pinout
and a pinup.

>Don't tell me you love it for the editorial content; I won't believe 
>you.

You should have gotten a clue when you read the "Letters to the
Editor" page, and the first one began "I'm a horny OS/2 slut monkey,
and I really love getting ----ed by IBM executives. I want them to
make me get down on my knees and BEG to pay thousands of dollars to
upgrade to OS/2 Warp Server for my $800 Dell computer".
 
>You mean I've been vicitimized by those home-PC-improvement scam 
>artists praying on the elderly in big cities across America? 

Yes. They stole your brain. You'll need a new one.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          17-Nov-99 06:21:15
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:15
Subj: Re: Windows posting activitiy...

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>>David T. Johnson
>> It seems that our resident "Windows Advocates" here, McCoy, Glatt, and
>> Robinson, have been posting here more frequently and their posts are
>> more antagonstic than usual.  Is this a response to Microsoft's recent
>> court defeats?

>David D. Huff Jr.
>Absolutely! They've started writing me direct the past several weeks.

Uh no, I haven't "written you direct". Apparently, you've been
fantasying about receiving email again. How many times does your
psychiatrist have to explain to you that you will never receive email
from people unless you take your medication and stop scaring people
away?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com                             17-Nov-99 06:47:09
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 03:37:15
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com

In article <80nsj8$qbr$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

-- snip --

> Curtis Bass writes:
>
> > I understand the logic just fine, Dave.
>
> Obviously not, given that you've called it "inept".

No, Dave, I did not call the logic inept. Either you have reading
comprehension problems, or you simply don't listen.

> > I also understand the limitations of logic, that it can lead to
> > erroneous conclusions when applied haphazardly,
>
> Didn't stop you from making your "inept" claim.

Because there is no reason it should.  The conclusion is not the reason
I called you inept. I have stated this before, but, again, you either
have reading comprehension problems, or you simply don't listen.

> > and can also lead to erroneous conclusion when applied meticulously
> > and carefully.
>
> Didn't stop you from making your "inept" claim.

Again, because there is no reason it should.

> > Logic is not a panacea, although you seem to cling to logic as if it
> > were life itself, ignoring/evading error in the process.
>
> I prefer the application of logic over the application of invective,
> such as you've done.

"Are you really that idiotic?"  Dave Tholen -- 11/07/99

> > I call you inept, not because you logically come to an erroneous
> > conclusion. That happens to the best of us.
>
> On the contrary, that's exactly what you did.

Sorry, wrong. I called you inept because you posted the erroneous
conclusion in order to support yet another erroneous conclusion.  See
the difference, Dave?

> > I call you inept because you hide behind logic rather than admit
> > that the conclusion to which you arrived, via said logic, was wrong.
>
> Where have I allegedly hidden behind logic, and how is that allegedly
> "inept"?

Every time I stated that your "Yet to look at the contents, one must
have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!" claim was
wrong, you replied with "If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction
on some system that doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work,
what other choices do you have?" That is hiding behind logic, Dave.
Doing such instead of admitting your error is inept.

> Remember, you called me "inept" before you even knew the
> facts surrounding the situation.

I knew, a priori, that WinZip is superior to InfoZip, even if we
restrict our discussion to zip files. I knew, a priori, that you posted
"Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
on an OS/2 system to boot!" and that it was an erroneous claim. I knew,
a priori, that WinZip can and did extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE
successfully.

Ergo, I knew, a priori, that your interpretation of InfoZip's error
messages was incorrect. Granted, my interpretation was also incorrect,
but I didn't use my interpretation to substantiate an erroneous claim.

You did.

> > You display an attitude that, since a conclusion was arrived at
> > "logically," that conclusion cannot be questioned,
>
> Where have I allegedly displayed such an attitude, Curtis?

Every time I state that your "Yet to look at the contents, one must have
run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!" claim is wrong,
and you reply with "If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on
some system that doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work,
what other choices do you have?" as if that clears everything up, you
display such an attitude.

-- snip --

> > Comparing ourselves to Isaac Newton now, are we?
>
> Having more reading comprehensio problems, Curtis?  I'm not comparing
> anyone to Isaac Newton.  Rather, I'm applying your brand of reasoning
> to conclude that he's "inept".

And you are displaying your own ineptitude in the process . . .

> > Are you going to put forth the argument that Newton's laws are
> > "wrong?"
>
> They don't properly explain the advance of Mercury's perihelion, for
> example.

And when was the discrepency discovered, Dave? When was it documented?
Did Newton have access to this documentation?  Was Newton able to
observe this phenomenon?  Was what the state of the art of astonomy in
Newton's day, Dave?  I know that refracting telescopes existed, for
Galileo used such decades earlier, but were they sufficient tools for
observing and charting the advance of Mercury's perihelion?

And if Newton did have such data available, would he have ignored it
"because the source was a 'known liar?'"

My own initial research indicates that the discrepency between the
predicted advance of Mercury's perihelion and the observed advance was
not pointed out until 1859, by Le Verrier. This was 132 years after
Newton's death, Dave.

OTOH, you had all of the tools and information you needed to test your
conclusion, Dave. Whose fault is it if you ignore evidence?

BTW, I see what you are doing, Dave. You are steering the dialog away
from your errors, and into the fields of physics and astronomy, in which
you are presumably more knowledgeable than I. In addition, you have
resources in the form of fellow faculty members, with whom you can
non-chalantly discuss the pertainant issues over a cup of coffee at the
local cafe or in the instructors' lounge.

I, OTOH, have to either admit that I am not knowledgeable in these areas
and resign, or do lots of research in order to argue intelligently.

Again, it's another evasive maneuver, and as transparant as the air we
breathe.

> > Are you willing to stake your reputation and career on such a
> > statement?
>
> What statement are you referring to, Curtis?  Yours?  Why would I
> stake my reputation and career on *your* statement???
>
> Newton's laws don't explain the gravitational bending of light either,
> Curtis.

And this phenomenon wasn't even observed until *AFTER* Einstien
predicted it, Dave. Newton predates Einstien by over 150 years.
Einstien had more data, better data and better tools than Newton.

Newton used the tools and data he had at his disposal. You did not.
That's the difference, Dave.

-- snip --

> > OTOH, "yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable
> > file and on an OS/2 system to boot!" is wrong, and saying as much is
> > not an over-generalization, but simply a statement of fact.
>
> On the other hand, to say "light has no mass, thus the gravitational
> effect on it is zero" is wrong, and saying as much is not an over-
> generalization, but simply a statement of fact.
>
> Of course, my point is that you called my conclusion "inept", from
> which we can conclude that you find Isaac Newton to also be "inept".

So now you are putting words in my mouth. Clever.

No, like I said, there is nothing inept about coming to a wrong
conclusion, provided that you use the tools and data you have at your
disposal to verify the conclusion to the best of your abilities before
publishing it. This is something you failed to do, Dave. You had
preconceived ideas about reality, and were neither impartial nor
objective in the least.  You jumped to the erroneous conclusion that one
had to run OS/2 in order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.
Furthermore, you "supported" the claim  with hastily produced "evidence"
in the form of error messages from InfoZip's unzip tool.  Since you were
biased toward supporting your initial erroneous conclusion at the
outset, you misinterpreted the error messages issued by unzip.exe, and
you didn't bother to do further testing in order to determine what the
error messages really meant.

What you did was sloppy analysis, Dave, and you got burned for it.  And
now you have the audacity to compare your situation to that of Isaac
Newton, as if his conclusions were based on such sloppy science.

You are a real piece of work, Dave.

> > Granted, but you could have still run the extraction
>
> I already had the critical piece, namely classes.zip.

So then, you had no reason to run InfoZip against the file, yet you did
so anyway. Typical inconsistency.

-- snip --

> > You arrived at an erroneous conclusion, and proceded to defend said
> > error rather than admit to it. That alone substantiates my claim,
>
> You claimed that I was "inept" prior to the so-called defense.

Wrong, Dave.  You are the one who cannot get the chronology straight. I
called you inept after you posted the erroneously interpreted error
messages in defense of your erroneous claim.

> > but your repeated attempts at justification compound that
> > substantiation.
>
> Isaac Newton justified his conclusions repeatedly as well, Curtis.
> Odd that an application of your brand of reasoning would find him
> to be "inept".

If you can prove to me that Newton was as sloppy as you were, that he
had an agenda and preconceived notions about the world in which he
lived, and if you can prove to me that he ignored evidence that was
presented to him, and neglected to use tools that were available to him,
then I will concede that his situation was similar to your situation.

Until then, you are doing nothing but being extremely arrogant.


Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 17-Nov-99 07:22:13
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 10:26:28
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <80t84l$et9$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>> Curtis Bass writes:
>
>>>>> Reread the material you snipped, Curtis:
>>>>>
>>>>> MT] I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>>>>> MT] classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>>> MT] so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>>> MT] The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>>>>> MT] AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.
>
>>>>>> Mike, if you are reading this, what did you mean?
>
>>>>> He meant what he wrote, Curtis.  Why ignore the written evidence?
>
>>>> I did mean what I wrote, and what I wrote is that I can read the file 
>>>> in question, which is javainuf.exe.
>
>>> Illogical, Mike.  You wrote "I was able to read the file" and then
>>> went on to reference what you read "The first file in classes.zip".
>
>> You're leaving out the fact that I gave you several statistics about
>> classes.zip itself, which I obtained by reading the file javainuf.exe.
>> The point was to demonstrate that WinZip can read javainuf.exe
>
>If that was your point, Mike, then why refer to the first and last
>files in classes.zip?

To show that I can read that file "in a meaninful fashion", as the
rest of the sentence indicates...

>> in a meaninful fashion (unlike LIST, which you keep comparing it to).
>
>LIST can provide meaningful information, Mike.

But not as meaningful as WinZip, in this case, which is why your
comparison is absurd.

>> I might, for example, mention to you that I am able to read a
>> particular book, then go on to cite information about the first
>> chapter within that book.
>
>Like the title of the first chapter.  And then the title of the
>last chapter.  The book in this case would be classes.zip.

No, Dave, the book is javainuf.exe, and the chapter in question is
classes.zip.

>>> Remember, you were referring to classes.zip long before you ever
>>> mentioned javainuf.exe; I had to coax that top-level filename out
>>> of you.
>
>> And, when I gave you the top level filename, that's the file we've been
>> talking about.  Tell me, Dave, what's the most recent file I referred 
>> to *before* the paragraph you mention?
>
>Irrelevant, Mike, given that I'm dealing with your paragraph, not the
>one before it.

Quite relevant, as it demonstrates that you're taking the paragraph
out of context.  When this fact is brought to your attention, you 
refuse to consider the context.  In fact, you consider the context
"irrelevent".  That's because it shows that you're completely wrong.
As usual.

>> Yes, it's javainuf.exe.
>
>And in paragraphs before that, you were referring to classes.zip, Mike.

And intelligent readers can easily understand which file I'm referring
to at which time.  Obviously, you are not an intelligent reader. 

>>>> Haven't you learned your lesson by now?
>
>>> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't learned his lesson by now.
>
>> Amusingly, here you are trying to claim that the subject of *my* sentence
>> is what *you* misinterpreted it to be.  Tsk, tsk.
>
>What alleged misinterpretation, Mike?  

Your misinterpretation, Dave.

>Are you denying that you wrote the quotation above?

Of course not, Dave; I'm telling you that your absurd misinterpretation
is both wrong and dishonest.  

You aren't fooling anybody.  When you keep arguing points that you've
clearly lost, you only make yourself look even more pathetic.

     - Mike





--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 17-Nov-99 07:24:15
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 10:26:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <80rcot$3ot$2@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>> Curtis Bass writes:
>
>>>>>>>>>> Take another look at the URL:
>>>>>>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg
>
>>>>>>>>> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.
>
>>>>>>>> Nor does it need to.
>
>>>>>>> On the contrary, it does.
>
>>>>>> Explain why.
>
>>>>> Because if it did, you'd get an error, perhaps not identical to the
>>>>> one InfoZip generated, but an error nonetheless.
>
>>>> So you're claiming that your copy of javainuf.exe, which you claimed
>>>> to have downloaded from IBM's web site, is corrupt, or damaged in
>>>> some other way,
>
>>> I'm claiming the file is incomplete, Mike.
>
>>>> but you did not realize it at first?
>
>>> Netscape issued no error message, Mike.  All the other files that were
>>> downloaded were fine.  Given that there are two runtime environments
>>> to choose from, and the fact that I chose to install the one without
>>> unicode fonts, I had no reason to extract javainuf.exe until you
>>> claimed that you looked at its contents.
>
>> In fact, even *after* I told you that I looked at its contents, you
>> *still* did not bother to extract the contents of javainuf.exe.
>> Isn't that correct?  Because, if you had, you would have realized that 
>> your copy of the file was incomplete.
>
>You hadn't even told me the name of the top-level file at that time,
>Mike.

You're full of shit, Dave:

MT] >> For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
MT] >> when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.
  ] >
DT] > Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
DT] > let's take a closer look at that file.
  ]
DT] > Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
DT] > on an OS/2 system to boot!  

Obviously, your quoted text occurs *after* I told you the name of the
file, and you're claiming I must have run the executable file on OS/2 to 
look at the contents.

You came to that incorrect conclusion because you did not even bother
to run your copy of the file on your own system.

>> In fact, I told you that I used WinZip as my extraction tool.
>
>Seems like a reasonable tool to use on a zip file like classes.zip,
>Mike.

Except that, since you *know* I'm referring to javainuf.exe at that point, 
you're lying again:

MT] >> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
MT] >
MT] >Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
  ] >
DT] >] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
DT] >]  End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is not
DT] >]  a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In the
DT] >]  latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found on
DT] >]  the last disk(s) of this archive.
DT] >] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
DT] >] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
DT] >]        and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

Obviously you know I'm talking about javainuf.exe, since that's the file 
you tried to use InfoZip on.

>> You lied when you told me you used OS/2 since, in fact, you did not even 
>> bother to extract the contents of the file in question.
>
>On the contrary, Mike, I already had classes.zip from the other
>runtime environemtn.

Except that "classes.zip" isn't the file in question here.  Note a
further quote:

MT] > I was easily able to extract the contents of the self-extracting 
MT] > executable without using OS/2.
  ]  
DT] Despite the string "This program must be run under OS/2." 
  ]  
MT] > classes.zip is one of the files included.
  ]  
DT] Irrelevant, Mike.
 
Here, you claim that classes.zip isn't even relevent, and continue to
insist that I must be using OS/2 to extract the contents of the file
(the file being javainuf.exe, in case you're getting confused again).

>> You erroneously assumed that it would behave in a similar manner as
>> the file you did extract.
>
>WinZip can't make the proper bytes magically appear, Mike.

I'm talking about javainuf.exe vs. the file you did extract, Dave.  Try
and keep up.

>>>> Is that the way you want to explain your mistake?
>
>>> It's a fact that the file download was incomplete, Mike.  It's also a
>>> fact that there was no indication of that until Marty stated that he
>>> was able to unzip the file with InfoZip.  I at least came to the
>>> correct conclusion that the file was to blame, so I downloaded another
>>> copy.  
>
>> No, Dave, you came to the incorrect conclusion that I must have been
>> running OS/2 to extract the contents of the file.
>
>If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
>doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
>choices do you have, Mike?

You are proceeding from a false assumption.  You claim that unzip doesn't
work, when, in fact, it does work, provided the input is complete.  The
correct conclusion, in your case, is that your copy of the file is 
incomplete.  You failed to account for that possibility, leading you 
to draw that wrong conclusion. 

DT] Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
DT] on an OS/2 system to boot!  

Obviously, your conclusion is wrong.

>> You came to the incorrect conclusion that the file's compression format
>> was not portable, since InfoZip could not read *your* copy.
>
>On what basis do you make that unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Mike?

DT] Do you understand that you previously called the standard archive 
DT] format portable, Mike? 

MT] >WinZip can read the file just fine.
  ] 
DT] LIST can "read" the file just fine, Mike.  That doesn't make everything 
DT] comprehensible to a human.
 
If you knew the format was portable, why the stupid comparisons to LIST,
and the references to "comprehensible to a human"?  Obviously, you 
concluded that the format was not portable, and based that conclusion
on the fact that InfoZip would not work on your incomplete copy of the
file.

>>> Amazing that people jumped to the erroneous conclusion that InfoZip was
>>> somehow less capable at unzipping the file than WinZip, and that it makes
>>> OS/2 look bad.  But I'm accustomed to seeing such erroneous conclusions
>>> from people in this newsgroup.
>
>> So tell me, would your conclusion that I must have been running OS/2
>> be one of these "erroneous conclusions"?
>
>If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
>doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
>choices do you have, Mike?

Tell me, Dave, was you conclusion the correct one?  Is it true that I
must be running OS/2 to extract the contents of the file in question
(the file being "javainuf.exe")?

     - Mike


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: thaller@sbox.tu-graz.ac.at                        17-Nov-99 09:48:20
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 10:26:29
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows... 

From: Wolfgang Thaller <thaller@sbox.tu-graz.ac.at>

> A Windows program uses the CreateIC() API to get an "information context";
> just like a DC (device context) but it can't draw. What it can do is measure
> text and get devices caps and so on. [...]
I agree with you that this is a slight advantage of Win32, but
A) I don't think that it is that important (see below)
B) I have made bad experiences with the Windows Printing API in the past
(but that's a different story...)

> But these fonts do not always exactly
> match *any* real screen fonts. 
So there's our first problem. As soon as we use printer fonts, we do no
longer have WYSIWYG. If we wrap text using the ICs, for example, we
might get different pagination when printing. Perhaps it's OK when I
just want a quick printout without waiting for my own fonts to download,
but I wouldn't want it for my finished document.

> Macintoshes have problems here. They can't do this, so either users turn
> off font substitution (and screen fonts must be downloaded to the printer,
> which slows it down) or else the screen and printer don't quite match.

Is that still the case with the new Carbon Printing API? I know the old
Printing API sucks, but that's why they're replacing it. I havent
checked it out yet, though.

Currently, the MacOS seems to try and force some of the screen font
metrics onto the printer font when using font substitution. That is, the
application uses the screen font's metrics and the printer prints using
its own fonts, but the spacing is changed in the right places so that
the overall page layout still looks right (block justification works).
This isn't perfect for finished documents, either, but I need to use the
same fonts as on the screen anyway to get the page breaks right (at
least when you're using something like M$Word).

In short, if the BeOS supports printing as well as the Mac (which I
think it does), it's really just about the drivers...


Wolfgang Thaller

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Graz University of Technology, Austria (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mike@lionsgate.com                                17-Nov-99 08:55:07
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 10:26:29
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows... 

From: mike@lionsgate.com (Mike Stephen)

Although BEOS is miles ahead of Windows, it is only as good as Linux,
and is far behind OS/2



I just finished my first week with Beos.  I must say I was hoping for
more...  I came from the OS/2 WPS area and I have noticed more and
more OS/2 users are having to leave OS/2 (due to lack of future
support from IBM) and are looking for alternatives. 
 

I tried Linux and FreeBSD but they have rather clunky multitasking,
and have poorly written user interfaces (KDE and GNOME).  The UI is
patterned after Windows and in my opinion it is just as flawed as the
Windows interface is.  I would have hoped that the UI writers would be
able to vastly improve upon Windows.....  It appears that none of the
UI programmers for KDE, Gnome or BE have ever used the OS/2 WPS.  


If only some other operating system writers would at lease look into
incorporating SOM and DSOM into a corba compliant WPS type of
interface.  Millions of OS/2 users would flock to such an operating
system.  BEOS is slightly better than Linux, but not as good as I was
hoping...  Its multitasking is not as fluid as OS/2, its multimedia
video support is not as good as OS/2.. Its multimedia sound capability
is much better than all the rest including Os/2.  However sound is
only a small part of multimedia.  Video is more important, and I was
lead to believe that Beos was a leader in Video.  Well OS/2 does more
video formats and does it much better than Beos m(at the operating
system level, not at an application level)!  Running two videos as
once tends to tax Beos to the limit.  Whereas I can run three or four
videos in OS/2....  Hmmmmm wouldn't it be great if we could get IBM to
spin off the os2 group as a separate company so that we could all get
updated operating systems that work?

Stability of Beos is a bit better than Windows, but not as stable as
Warp OS/2.  It is about the same as Linux.  I Was able to lock up a
few different apps during the week that required a hard reboot to
clear. The multitasking is a bit clunky as well.  Warp seems to have a
best compromise scheduler that allows multitasking
background/foreground apps better than any other operating system to
date.  Pity that some developers seem to miss out on this aspect of
Warp OS/2.  I can only guess that it is not due to stupidity, but
rather that these same developers are simply not aware of how high the
bar has been placed with Warp OS/2.  If all you have ever used
includes Windows and Linux, then Beos might seem to look good. 
However from a long time user of OS/2Warp,  can say that Beos needs a
whole lot more to even be considered in the same league as Warp. 

So the search goes on.  I want to replace Warp Os/2, but so far
nothing is anywhere near as easy to use or as reliable.  too bad IBM
sold out to Microsoft and basically buried OS/2.... 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: M Stephen Contracting (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         17-Nov-99 09:44:29
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 10:26:29
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>> Curtis Bass writes:

>>>>>> Reread the material you snipped, Curtis:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> MT] I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>>>>>> MT] classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>>>> MT] so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>>>> MT] The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>>>>>> MT] AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.

>>>>>>> Mike, if you are reading this, what did you mean?

>>>>>> He meant what he wrote, Curtis.  Why ignore the written evidence?

>>>>> I did mean what I wrote, and what I wrote is that I can read the file 
>>>>> in question, which is javainuf.exe.

>>>> Illogical, Mike.  You wrote "I was able to read the file" and then
>>>> went on to reference what you read "The first file in classes.zip".

>>> You're leaving out the fact that I gave you several statistics about
>>> classes.zip itself, which I obtained by reading the file javainuf.exe.
>>> The point was to demonstrate that WinZip can read javainuf.exe

>> If that was your point, Mike, then why refer to the first and last
>> files in classes.zip?

> To show that I can read that file "in a meaninful fashion", as the
> rest of the sentence indicates...

"That file" is classes.zip, Mike.

>>> in a meaninful fashion (unlike LIST, which you keep comparing it to).

>> LIST can provide meaningful information, Mike.

> But not as meaningful as WinZip, in this case, which is why your
> comparison is absurd.

On the contrary, it depends on what kind of information you're looking
for, Mike, so my comparison is not absurd.

>>> I might, for example, mention to you that I am able to read a
>>> particular book, then go on to cite information about the first
>>> chapter within that book.

>> Like the title of the first chapter.  And then the title of the
>> last chapter.  The book in this case would be classes.zip.

> No, Dave, the book is javainuf.exe, and the chapter in question is
> classes.zip.

Then what are "AbstractMethodError.class" and "ZipOutputStream.class",
Mike?

>>>> Remember, you were referring to classes.zip long before you ever
>>>> mentioned javainuf.exe; I had to coax that top-level filename out
>>>> of you.

>>> And, when I gave you the top level filename, that's the file we've been
>>> talking about.  Tell me, Dave, what's the most recent file I referred 
>>> to *before* the paragraph you mention?

>> Irrelevant, Mike, given that I'm dealing with your paragraph, not the
>> one before it.

> Quite relevant, as it demonstrates that you're taking the paragraph
> out of context.

Balderdash, Mike, as the paragraph provides its own context.

> When this fact is brought to your attention, you refuse to consider
> the context.

On the contrary, I'm sticking to the context provided by the paragraph
itself.

> In fact, you consider the context "irrelevent".

On the contrary, I consider the context quite relevant, Mike.

> That's because it shows that you're completely wrong.

Balderdash, Mike.  You're own text clearly shows you referring to
classes.zip, thus you're the one who is completely wrong.

> As usual.

How ironic, coming from the person who is usually wrong.

>>> Yes, it's javainuf.exe.

>> And in paragraphs before that, you were referring to classes.zip, Mike.

> And intelligent readers can easily understand which file I'm referring
> to at which time.

So, do "intelligent readers" easily understand that you're referring to
classes.zip when you mention AbstractMethodError.class, Mike?

> Obviously, you are not an intelligent reader. 

Typical invective, as is usually the case for someone who lacks a
logical argument.

>>>>> Haven't you learned your lesson by now?

>>>> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't learned his lesson by now.

>>> Amusingly, here you are trying to claim that the subject of *my* sentence
>>> is what *you* misinterpreted it to be.  Tsk, tsk.

>> What alleged misinterpretation, Mike?  

> Your misinterpretation, Dave.

What alleged misinterpretation of mine, Mike?  

>> Are you denying that you wrote the quotation above?

> Of course not, Dave;

Then there is no misinterpretation of you on my part, Mike.

> I'm telling you that your absurd misinterpretation is both wrong

Illogical, Mike, given that your reference to AbstractMethodError.class
is an unambiguous indication that you're talking about classes.zip.

> and dishonest.  

What's allegedly dishonest about the truth, Mike?

> You aren't fooling anybody.

Irrelevant, given that I'm not trying to fool anybody, Mike.

> When you keep arguing points that you've clearly lost, you only make
> yourself look even more pathetic.

How ironic, coming from someone who looks even more pathetic.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         17-Nov-99 10:09:14
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 10:26:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>> Curtis Bass writes:

>>>>>>>>>>> Take another look at the URL:
>>>>>>>>>>> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

>>>>>>>>>> Your URL doesn't deal with my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Marty.

>>>>>>>>> Nor does it need to.

>>>>>>>> On the contrary, it does.

>>>>>>> Explain why.

>>>>>> Because if it did, you'd get an error, perhaps not identical to the
>>>>>> one InfoZip generated, but an error nonetheless.

>>>>> So you're claiming that your copy of javainuf.exe, which you claimed
>>>>> to have downloaded from IBM's web site, is corrupt, or damaged in
>>>>> some other way,

>>>> I'm claiming the file is incomplete, Mike.

>>>>> but you did not realize it at first?

>>>> Netscape issued no error message, Mike.  All the other files that were
>>>> downloaded were fine.  Given that there are two runtime environments
>>>> to choose from, and the fact that I chose to install the one without
>>>> unicode fonts, I had no reason to extract javainuf.exe until you
>>>> claimed that you looked at its contents.

>>> In fact, even *after* I told you that I looked at its contents, you
>>> *still* did not bother to extract the contents of javainuf.exe.
>>> Isn't that correct?  Because, if you had, you would have realized that 
>>> your copy of the file was incomplete.

>> You hadn't even told me the name of the top-level file at that time,
>> Mike.

> You're full of shit, Dave:

Balderdash, Mike.  You're the one full of it.

> MT] >> For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
> MT] >> when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.
>   ] >
> DT] > Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
> DT] > let's take a closer look at that file.
>   ]
> DT] > Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
> DT] > on an OS/2 system to boot!  
>
> Obviously, your quoted text occurs *after* I told you the name of the
> file,

Mike, you were claiming to have read the contents long before the
quotation above, thus I am completely correct when I say that you
had not even told me the name of the top-level file at that time.

> and you're claiming I must have run the executable file on OS/2 to 
> look at the contents.

If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
choices do you have, Mike?

> You came to that incorrect conclusion because you did not even bother
> to run your copy of the file on your own system.

I had already successfully run the other runtime environment, Mike.
Why run both?

>>> In fact, I told you that I used WinZip as my extraction tool.

>> Seems like a reasonable tool to use on a zip file like classes.zip,
>> Mike.

> Except that, since you *know* I'm referring to javainuf.exe at that point, 

On the contrary, Mike, you were referring to classes.zip as the source
of your contents information long before you had even mentioned the name
of the top-level file.

> you're lying again:

Balderdash, Mike.  You're just dishonestly pointing to the wrong text,
chronologically, again.

> MT] >> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
> MT] >
> MT] >Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
>   ] >
> DT] >] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
> DT] >]  End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is
not
> DT] >]  a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In
the
> DT] >]  latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found
on
> DT] >]  the last disk(s) of this archive.
> DT] >] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
> DT] >] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
> DT] >]        and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.
>
> Obviously you know I'm talking about javainuf.exe, since that's the file 
> you tried to use InfoZip on.

That's because the above error message was generated *after* you told me
the name of the top-level file, Mike.  That doesn't change the fact that
you were talking about the contents from classes.zip long before you even
told me the name of the top-level file.

>>> You lied when you told me you used OS/2 since, in fact, you did not even 
>>> bother to extract the contents of the file in question.

>> On the contrary, Mike, I already had classes.zip from the other
>> runtime environemtn.

> Except that "classes.zip" isn't the file in question here.

Of course it is, Mike.  If that's not the file with the contents you
read, then why did you even bring it up in the first place?

> Note a further quote:

Note a further dishonest reference to the wrong text, chronologically.

> MT] > I was easily able to extract the contents of the self-extracting 
> MT] > executable without using OS/2.
>   ]  
> DT] Despite the string "This program must be run under OS/2." 
>   ]  
> MT] > classes.zip is one of the files included.
>   ]  
> DT] Irrelevant, Mike.
> 
> Here, you claim that classes.zip isn't even relevent,

Of course it's irrelevant, when referring to the self-extracting
archive, Mike.  However, it's quite relevant when referring to the
contents.  Context, Mike; remember?

> and continue to insist that I must be using OS/2 to extract the
> contents of the file

If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
choices do you have, Mike?

> (the file being javainuf.exe, in case you're getting confused again).

But the contents are allegedly in classes.zip, Mike.

>>> You erroneously assumed that it would behave in a similar manner as
>>> the file you did extract.

>> WinZip can't make the proper bytes magically appear, Mike.

> I'm talking about javainuf.exe

The contents are allegedly in classes.zip, Mike.

> vs. the file you did extract, Dave.  Try and keep up.

How ironic, coming from the person who isn't keeping up.

>>>>> Is that the way you want to explain your mistake?

>>>> It's a fact that the file download was incomplete, Mike.  It's also a
>>>> fact that there was no indication of that until Marty stated that he
>>>> was able to unzip the file with InfoZip.  I at least came to the
>>>> correct conclusion that the file was to blame, so I downloaded another
>>>> copy.  

>>> No, Dave, you came to the incorrect conclusion that I must have been
>>> running OS/2 to extract the contents of the file.

>> If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
>> doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
>> choices do you have, Mike?

> You are proceeding from a false assumption.

On the contrary, it was no false assumption that unzip doesn't work on
my copy of the javainuf.exe file, Mike.

> You claim that unzip doesn't work, when, in fact, it does work,

Balderdash, Mike.  Reread the error message.

> provided the input is complete.

You're presupposing knowledge of the completeness of the input, Mike.

> The correct conclusion, in your case, is that your copy of the file is 
> incomplete.

Illogical, given that all the other files were fine, Mike.

> You failed to account for that possibility,

Occam's Razor, Mike.  There's lots of possibilities.

> leading you to draw that wrong conclusion. 

How ironic, coming from the person who made a wrong conclusion about
the functionality of Java 1.2 that was implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.

> DT] Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
> DT] on an OS/2 system to boot!  
>
> Obviously, your conclusion is wrong.

If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
choices do you have, Mike?

>>> You came to the incorrect conclusion that the file's compression format
>>> was not portable, since InfoZip could not read *your* copy.

>> On what basis do you make that unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, Mike?

> DT] Do you understand that you previously called the standard archive 
> DT] format portable, Mike? 
>
> MT] >WinZip can read the file just fine.
>   ] 
> DT] LIST can "read" the file just fine, Mike.  That doesn't make everything 
> DT] comprehensible to a human.

Having more reading comprehension problems, Mike?  The above doesn't
represent a claim by me that the compression format is not portable.

> If you knew the format was portable, why the stupid comparisons to LIST,

What's allegedly stupid about the comparison, Mike?  I was referring to
a way to "read" the file, hence the quotation marks.  You've been known
to play semantic games over the meaning of words like "read".

> and the references to "comprehensible to a human"?

I was referring to a way to "read" the file, hence the quotation marks.
You've been known to play semantic games over the meaning of words like
"read".

> Obviously, you concluded that the format was not portable,

Liar.

> and based that conclusion on the fact that InfoZip would not work on
> your incomplete copy of the file.

You're erroneously presupposing that I concluded that the format was not
portable, Mike.

>>>> Amazing that people jumped to the erroneous conclusion that InfoZip was
>>>> somehow less capable at unzipping the file than WinZip, and that it makes
>>>> OS/2 look bad.  But I'm accustomed to seeing such erroneous conclusions
>>>> from people in this newsgroup.

>>> So tell me, would your conclusion that I must have been running OS/2
>>> be one of these "erroneous conclusions"?

>> If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
>> doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
>> choices do you have, Mike?

> Tell me, Dave, was you conclusion the correct one?

Tell me, Mike, does OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implement Java 1.2 functionality?

> Is it true that I must be running OS/2 to extract the contents of the
> file in question (the file being "javainuf.exe")?

If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
choices do you have, Mike?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         17-Nov-99 10:53:22
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 10:26:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:

CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so inclined.

I am deleting all but the most recent new text.

Curtis Bass writes:

> No, Dave, I did not call the logic inept.

On the contrary, you did, Curtis.

> Either you have reading comprehension problems,

How ironic, coming from the person with reading comprehension problems.

> or you simply don't listen.

How ironic, coming from the person who simply doesn't listen.

> Because there is no reason it should.

On the contrary, there is a reason, Curtis.

> The conclusion is not the reason I called you inept.

On the contrary, it is the reason, Curtis.  I suggest you reacquaint
yourself with the chronology of the thread.

> I have stated this before,

You pontificated before.

> but, again, you either have reading comprehension problems,

How ironic, coming from the person with reading comprehension problems.

> or you simply don't listen.

How ironic, coming from the person who simply doesn't listen.

> Again, because there is no reason it should.

On the contrary, there is a reason, Curtis.

> "Are you really that idiotic?"  Dave Tholen -- 11/07/99

Where did I allegedly substitute that for a logical argument, Curtis?

> Sorry, wrong.

Yet another example of your pontification.

> I called you inept because you posted the erroneous conclusion in
> order to support yet another erroneous conclusion.

What allegedly erroneous conclusion was I allegedly supporting, Curtis?

> See the difference, Dave?

I just see more of your pontification, Curtis.

> Every time I stated that your "Yet to look at the contents, one must
> have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!" claim was
> wrong, you replied with "If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction
> on some system that doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work,
> what other choices do you have?" That is hiding behind logic, Dave.

Illogical, Curtis.  Coming forward with logic is not "hiding" behind it.
Looks like you're resorting to a semantic argument over what you consider
"hiding" in a feeble attempt to justify your claim.

> Doing such instead of admitting your error is inept.

How ironic, coming from someone whose "inept" claim is "inept".

> I knew, a priori, that WinZip is superior to InfoZip, even if we
> restrict our discussion to zip files.

And how does WinZip make the proper bytes magically appear, Curtis?

> I knew, a priori, that you posted "Yet to look at the contents, one
> must have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!"
> and that it was an erroneous claim.

Because you thought WinZip was superior???

> I knew, a priori, that WinZip can and did extract the contents of
> JAVAINUF.EXE successfully.

And exactly how did you know this "a priori", Curtis?

> Ergo, I knew, a priori, that your interpretation of InfoZip's error
> messages was incorrect.

And exactly how did you know this "a priori", Curtis?

> Granted, my interpretation was also incorrect,

"Inept", to use your reasoning.

> but I didn't use my interpretation to substantiate an erroneous claim.

On the contrary, Curtis, you did.  You called me "inept", which is an
erroneous claim.

> You did.

How ironic, coming from the person who used his erroneous interpretation
to try and substantiate an erroneous claim.

> Every time I state that your "Yet to look at the contents, one must have
> run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!" claim is wrong,
> and you reply with "If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on
> some system that doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work,
> what other choices do you have?" as if that clears everything up, you
> display such an attitude.

Illogical, Curtis, given that such a statement does equate with
calling a conclusion unquestionable.

> And you are displaying your own ineptitude in the process . . .

Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim, which, ironically
enough, is a display of your own ineptitude.

> And when was the discrepency discovered, Dave?

Irrelevant, Curtis, given that there are more discrepancies than just
that one.

> When was it documented?

Irrelevant, Curtis, given that there are more discrepancies than just
that one.

> Did Newton have access to this documentation?

Irrelevant, Curtis, given that there are more discrepancies than just
that one.

> Was Newton able to observe this phenomenon?

Irrelevant, Curtis, given that there are more discrepancies than just
that one.

> Was what the state of the art of astonomy in Newton's day, Dave?

What is "astonomy", Curtis?

> I know that refracting telescopes existed, for Galileo used such
> decades earlier, but were they sufficient tools for observing and
> charting the advance of Mercury's perihelion?

Tycho Brahe was making positional observations of the planets before
the invention of the telescope, Curtis.  Whose data do you think
Kepler used to derive his laws of orbital motion?

> And if Newton did have such data available, would he have ignored it
> "because the source was a 'known liar?'"

How would I know what Newton might have done, Curtis?

> My own initial research indicates that the discrepency between the
> predicted advance of Mercury's perihelion and the observed advance
> was not pointed out until 1859, by Le Verrier. This was 132 years
> after Newton's death, Dave.

Irrelevant, Curtis, given that there are more discrepancies than just
that one.

> OTOH, you had all of the tools and information you needed to test your
> conclusion, Dave.

Which I did, Curtis.

> Whose fault is it if you ignore evidence?

What evidence have I allegedly ignored, Curtis?

> BTW, I see what you are doing, Dave. You are steering the dialog away
> from your errors, and into the fields of physics and astronomy, in which
> you are presumably more knowledgeable than I.

On the contrary, Curtis, I'm simply using an analogy that shows why
your "inept" conclusion is "inept" itself.

> In addition, you have resources in the form of fellow faculty members,
> with whom you can non-chalantly discuss the pertainant issues over a
> cup of coffee at the local cafe or in the instructors' lounge.

Irrelevant, given that I haven't used any of those resources in this
situation, Curtis.

> I, OTOH, have to either admit that I am not knowledgeable in these
> areas and resign, or do lots of research in order to argue
> intelligently.

Too bad you didn't do that before you unleashed your "inept" claim.

> Again, it's another evasive maneuver, and as transparant as the air
> we breathe.

On the contrary, Curtis, it's not an evasive maneuvar at all.  I'm
simply using an analogy that shows why your "inept" conclusion is
"inept" itself.

> And this phenomenon wasn't even observed until *AFTER* Einstien
> predicted it, Dave.

Which means Newton could have also predicted it.  He didn't.  Using
your reasoning, Newton was "inept".

> Newton predates Einstien by over 150 years.

Irrelevant, Curtis.

> Einstien had more data, better data and better tools than Newton.

Gosh, and you had a better copy of the file than I did.  Maybe,
just maybe, you're beginning to see the parallel here?

> Newton used the tools and data he had at his disposal. You did not.

On the contrary, I used the tools and data I had at my disposal,
Curtis.

> That's the difference, Dave.

You're erroneously presupposing that I did not use the tools and
data at my disposal, Curtis.

> So now you are putting words in my mouth. Clever.

On the contrary, I'm simply applying your own brand of reasoning,
Curtis.  Perhaps you're beginning to realize why your conclusion
that I'm allegedly "inept" is an inept conclusion itself.

> No, like I said, there is nothing inept about coming to a wrong
> conclusion, provided that you use the tools and data you have at your
> disposal to verify the conclusion to the best of your abilities before
> publishing it.

Didn't stop you from calling me "inept", Curtis.

> This is something you failed to do, Dave.

On what basis do you make that claim, Curtis?

> You had preconceived ideas about reality, and were neither impartial nor
> objective in the least.

How ironic, coming from someone who had preconceived ideas about reality,
and were neither imparital nor objective in the least.

> You jumped to the erroneous conclusion that one had to run OS/2 in
> order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.

You jumped to the erroneous conclusions that I am "inept".

> Furthermore, you "supported" the claim  with hastily produced "evidence"
> in the form of error messages from InfoZip's unzip tool.

Furthermore, you "supported" the claim with hastily produced "evidence"
that WinZip was superior to InfoZip as an unzipper.

> Since you were biased toward supporting your initial erroneous
> conclusion at the outset, you misinterpreted the error messages
> issued by unzip.exe, and you didn't bother to do further testing
> in order to determine what the error messages really meant.

Since you were biased toward supporting your initial erroneous
conclusion at the outset, you misinterpreted the success of WinZip
as an indication of its superiority and you didn't bother to do
further testing in order to determine that it really wasn't superior
in its ability to unzip an incomplete zip archive.

> What you did was sloppy analysis, Dave, and you got burned for it.

What you did was sloppy analysis, Curtis, and you got burned for it.

> And now you have the audacity to compare your situation to that of
> Isaac Newton, as if his conclusions were based on such sloppy science.

I never said that, Curtis.  I'm applying *your* reasoning to the
situation, not mine.

> You are a real piece of work, Dave.

How ironic, coming from a real piece of work.

> So then, you had no reason to run InfoZip against the file,

On the contrary, Curtis, I did have a reason, given that my copy of
classes.zip was obtained via the self-extraction method.

> yet you did so anyway. Typical inconsistency.

On the contrary, Curtis, it's just typical illogic on your part.

> Wrong, Dave.

Yet another example of your pontification.

> You are the one who cannot get the chronology straight.

How ironic, coming from the person who has repeatedly gotten the
chronology wrong.

> I called you inept after you posted the erroneously interpreted error
> messages in defense of your erroneous claim.

That's not the defense you were referring to previously, Curtis.

> If you can prove to me that Newton was as sloppy as you were,

You're erroneously presupposing that I regard either Newton or myself
as "sloppy", Curtis.

> that he had an agenda and preconceived notions about the world in which
> he lived,

Are you now accusing me of having an agenda and having preconceived notions
about the world, Curtis?  What would this alleged "agenda" be, Curtis?

> and if you can prove to me that he ignored evidence that was presented
> to him,

Are you accusing Newton of being so gullible as to believe everything
he was told, Curtis?

> and neglected to use tools that were available to him,

Are you accusing me of not using the tools available to me, Curtis?

> then I will concede that his situation was similar to your situation.

You don't even understand my situation, Curtis.

> Until then, you are doing nothing but being extremely arrogant.

How ironic, coming from someone doing nothing but being extremely
arrogant.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         17-Nov-99 10:58:16
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 10:26:29
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451500

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty's continuing to play the parrot, which has him accusing me
of going down the Eliza path, when in reality it was Marty who did
that.  And despite the evidence I've presented, he still claims that
I have no basis for saying that he's playing an "infantile game".
Here's today's digest:

1> Dave, stupidly as usual, continues to ignore the fact that Mike
1> referred to classes.zip as being compressed.  The only way he could
1> view classes.zip as being compressed is if it were inside of
1> JAVAINUF.EXE because the classes.zip file itself has 0% compression
1> as I have shown in the past.  Too bad Dave doesn't let facts get in
1> the way of his fantasy world.

2> Kinda like Tholen "shouting" that I'm playing an infantile game over
2> and over again without any basis.

3> Consistent with Tholen's recent justification for his snippage:

3> I am deleting all but the most recent new text.

3> If anyone doubts that Dave is playing an "infantile game" after
3> reading today's digest, please let him know.  He'll probably try
3> to use the fact that no one has contacted him as evidence of a
3> general agreement between himself and "his readers", however to
3> use his own words, he "would be unlikely to obtain a statistically
3> significant sample".  What will be obvious from reading the digest
3> is the fact that Dave hasn't responded to any articles with anything
3> of value.  This has come to be expected from him, however, and should
3> not be a surprise to anyone.

3> It seems he got his infantile wrath out of his system (after warning
3> me "about going down that path"), and has resumed taking my statements
3> completely out of context and responding to them inappropriately.
3> Again, no surprise for those who have read a few of Tholen's postings.

3> Here's today's digest, with appropriate commentary by Dr. Sbaitso
3> version 1.01 by Creative Labs:

3> DON'T STAND ON CEREMONY

3> WHAT IS IT THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW?

3> WHY DO YOU ASK THIS QUESTION?

3> IT IS HARD TO EXPLAIN DAVE THOLEN

3> I KNOW YOUR NAME IS DAVE THOLEN, THAT'S ALL

3> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOU

3> AH , WHAT KIND OF ANSWER WOULD PLEASE YOU THE MOST?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jimf@frostbytes.com                               17-Nov-99 06:39:16
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 10:27:00
Subj: Re: Stealing from Xerox and some sane discussion on remedies

From: Jim Frost <jimf@frostbytes.com>

Dan Kegel wrote: 
> > Lastly, it's worth noting that any remedies are coming too late.  If you
> > hadn't noticed Microsoft is starting to lose their hold.  The PC desktop
> > market is at or very near its peak; over the next several years the vital
> > industries will be servers and display systems (palmtops and the like)
with
> > ever increasing reliance on networks.
> 
> The remedies are partly there to keep Microsoft from extending
> its monopoly to new areas.  This applies even if their old monopoly starts
> to fade; it's in the public interest to keep a known abuser of monopoly
> power from getting its hands into another set of cookie jars.
> In that sense, the remedies are not too late.

It's perfectly fine for Microsoft to obtain another monopoly if they can do so
through fair competition.  What's not fine is using the one they have to give
themselves a leg up.  In the realm of smaller systems their attempts at
leveraging their monopoly have not only failed to produce but have probably
been counterproductive.

jim

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Road Runner (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jimf@frostbytes.com                               17-Nov-99 06:47:16
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 10:27:00
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Jim Frost <jimf@frostbytes.com>

Bob Germer wrote:
> > Go figure.  Thing is, while I may have 10 MB free on my
> > OS2 machine (out of 128), on NT I have 80 MB free (right
> > now I have 55 MB free and another 30MB in file cache).
> > I think NT just moves stuff out to the pagefile when it
> > hasn't been used in X time.  OS2 leaves it in memory,
> > swapping out only if it needs the memory.  Or, not.
> 
> Which is much superior and faster no matter how fast your hard disks.
> Thank you for proving my point.

It is not faster.  In fact, the way OS/2 does it yields a synchronous paging
situation where you must wait for a page to be written before one is
available.  That's as bad as it gets.  Asynchronous paging, where you write
pages ahead of time assuming that you may need them fast later, is much faster
in practice.  This practice is cheap (virtually no performance impact) if you
have I/O bandwidth available so why not?

I note, however, that there are various problems in NT's VMM design that
seriously degrade this advantage -- including but not limited to the FIFO
working set page replacement algorithm and poor filesystem cache versus
working set management.

jim

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Road Runner (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jimf@frostbytes.com                               17-Nov-99 06:50:29
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 10:27:00
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Jim Frost <jimf@frostbytes.com>

Karel Jansens wrote:
> Amoebae, living in sealed lakes 3 kms below the Antarctic ice, know
> that the Mindcraft "tests" were as rigged as a clipper, and yet here
> we have our dear friends, the Winvocates, *still* claiming it was an
> honest comparison.

The Mindcraft tests were reasonably fair the second time around and are
repeatable outside of Mindcraft.  Linux has some serious bottlenecks on
multi-CPU systems and is not optimized for SMB or HTTP file delivery as NT is.

But this is neither here nor there so far as I'm concerned; I'll take the
performance hit for the improved reliability.

jim

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Road Runner (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jimf@frostbytes.com                               17-Nov-99 06:54:20
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 10:27:00
Subj: Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES 

From: Jim Frost <jimf@frostbytes.com>

hunters@sapphire.indstate.edu wrote:
> Actually, there is no real technical reason that IBM couldn't do this.
> They have the Win95 source*, and with some minor changes and a
> recompile, it could run in a VDM.

Even if there aren't technical problems there are legal problems.  IBM lost
their right to distribute their own version of Windows prior to Win95's
launch.

I note that it certainly is possible to run Win9x inside a good enough virtual
machine; people do it under Linux all the time with VMWare.  They even run NT.

jim

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Road Runner (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  17-Nov-99 08:05:18
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 10:27:00
Subj: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451500.23324568^-799768

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

Tholen's continuing to play the parrot (Tholen want a cracker?), which has
him accusing others of going down the Eliza path, when in reality it was
Tholen who did that.  And despite the evidence presented, he still claims
that there is no basis for saying that he's playing an "infantile game," yet
that is precisely what he's doing.  Here's today's digest:

{[Nothing of any value added by Tholen]}

Thank you for reading!




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  17-Nov-99 08:15:17
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 14:38:16
Subj: Re: Glatt's Hypocrisy and Illogic Exposed Once again

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

A hypocritical something claiming to be something or other like a
<tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> tholened:

> Interesting that this OS/2 newsgroup gets so much attention from
> Windows evangelists.

Interesting that this OS/2 newsgroup gets so much attention from Tholen and
both of his evangelists, who clearly have nothing of value to add.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu                17-Nov-99 08:23:06
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 14:38:16
Subj: (1/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu (tholenbot)

In article <80gecv$2dg$1@news.hawaii.edu>, Dave "Bennett" Tholen
(tholenantispam@hawaii.edu) wrote:

> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say that?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> What makes you say that?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> > Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you elaborate on that?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Can you elaborate?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >> What makes you believe that?
> 
> > Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you positive that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Is it because do I say might want to do and that you came to me?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> > Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate it if you would continue.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Does it bother you that those are yours?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
> 
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >> Are you sure that those are mine?
> 
> > Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you certain that this is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> 
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> 
> > Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe what makes I believe this?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> When did you first know that those are eliza's?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> 
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> 
> > Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe my life that I am going through all this have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> something to do with this.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Earlier you said do I say might want to do claim and?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> > Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Go on, don't be afraid.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Don't you know?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >> What makes you believe that?
> 
> > Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you absolutely sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all
this?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> 
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> 
> > Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Illogical.
> 
> >>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> > Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're being a bit brief, perhaps you could go into detail.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all
this?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> 
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> 
> > Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to me?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> When did you first know that those are eliza's?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> 
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> 
> > Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to me?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Are you sure that this is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> > Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of my sex life that I am going through all
this that
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> you say I do not approve phrases either?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Don't ask me.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Don't tell me what to do.  I am the psychiatrist here!  Maybe
> >>>>>>>>>>> your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> I would appreciate it if you would continue.
> 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS 1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu                17-Nov-99 08:23:06
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 14:38:16
Subj: (2/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

> >>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >> What makes you believe that?
> 
> > Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

-- 
"I do not "approve" phrases.
-Dave Tholen"
-tholenbot

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS 1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu                17-Nov-99 08:24:01
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 14:38:16
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenbot@x3066.resnet.cornell.edu (tholenbot)

In article <80gep6$2dg$3@news.hawaii.edu>, tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> I see you're appending text again without adding a level of
> >>>>>>>>>> indentation, thereby creating the potential for the correct
> >>>>>>>>>> attribution to be misunderstood by the casual reader. 
> 
> >>>>>>>>> I don't understand.
> 
> >>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

Enjoying your chat with tholenbot, Dave?

> >>>>>>>>>> But
> >>>>>>>>>> even that wouldn't completely solve the problem, as you've also
> >>>>>>>>>> screwed up the correct attributions. 
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Is the fact that even that would not completely solve the problem
> >>>>>>>>> as Marty also screwed up the correct attributions the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> >>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> >>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

Enjoying your chat with tholenbot, Dave?

> >>>>>>>>>> Note that the URL and
> >>>>>>>>>> the line that follows have the same level of indentation, yet
> >>>>>>>>>> you wrote one and I wrote the other.
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Does the fact that the url and the line that follows have the same
> >>>>>>>>> indentation yet Marty wrote one and you wrote the other explain
> >>>>>>>>> anything else?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> 
> >>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> 
> >>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

Enjoying your chat with tholenbot, Dave?

-- 
"I do not "approve" phrases.
-Dave Tholen"
-tholenbot

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA BS 1 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ivaes@hr.nl                                       17-Nov-99 14:17:09
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 14:38:16
Subj: (1/3) Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Illya Vaes <ivaes@hr.nl>

Marty wrote:
>>example of a friend, they went and worked for them anyway.
>And if you read the example, you'd know that the new employee didn't feel 
>that his organization had unethical practices

Then he either agrees with them (which is bad) or he acts like an ostrich and
denies the problem. He can't deny the consequences though.

>or that he was getting involved in a sinister, criminal act by servicing
>several of their office LANs.  I hope you are starting to realize how
>absurd this angle is that you are persuing.

Arguing that people are fully aware when they choose where to work (one of the
bases of the US, "choice") is a lot less absurd than arguing that a company
that has willfully and repeatedly acted illegally should not be punished for
it, which you are doing.

BTW, *you* were pursuing an angle ("don' punish MS"), I'm only countering you.
Keep the history straight or you'll start to lie and say I'm actually
advocating MS employees losing their jobs.
 
>>And as David Raoul Derbes put so eloquently, they got the benefits of the
>>companies tactics until now, so why wouldn't they get the disadvantages
>>etc. too?
>The stockholders (be they employees or not) got those advantages too.  Does
>that make them criminals? 

The employees (in general) haven't been called criminals here, so this is a
strawman you've put up for yourself to knock down.
But now that you mention in, for the stockholders it's exactly the same.
They've had the benefits of the (illegal) activities of MS, so it's not unfair
for them to bear part of the consequences too.

>Many stockholders merely speculate in the market and have no particular 
>interest in the companies in which they invest (other then their recently 
>stock price activity).  Do they deserve to get what's coming to
>them from the profit they've made off of MS's crimes?

Yes.
I thought the US was all about being responsible for your actions? Or do you
think the freedom of choice doesn't have a price tag in the form of being
taken to justice for what you do wrong?
If you invest in something illegal, you deserve to lose the money. If you
weren't aware, you were at least ... not smart for not checking.
If investors only look at maximal profit and are willing to ignore the
underlying ethics of what they're investing in, they deserve to lose the money
even more, IMNSHO.
 
>>You're saying MS employees should be shielded from the things they have
>>inflicted upon employees of other companies without you stepping up to the
>>plate to defend those.
>How does a guy who services an office LAN inflict anything on anyone?

He doesn't (not directly anyway).
"They" = "MS". You could have understood it that way if you'd tried.
You don't address the issue. Why should MS employees not suffer because of
what their company has done (screw other companies etc.) while other
companies' employees should suffer because of what their company has done
(like dare to produce a competing and/or better product or dare to bundle
someone else's OS instead of one from MS)?
 
>>In other words, no-one can be held accountable for anti-trust offences, 
>>since that would mean individuals would be punished for what "the company"
>>has done.
>>Just toss out all laws governing business then...
>Corporations are their own "people" under the law.  This does shield the
>employees, but it's the law.  That's one of the big advantages to being

You canNOT bring a company to justice in any (meaningful) way without it
having consequences for (at least some of) the employees.

>incorporated over having a proprietorship.  If a proprietor goes bankrupt,
>his/her credit rating is ruined and his/her personal property is 
>confiscated to pay off remaining debts.  Not so when corporations go 
>bankrupt.

The employees of a bankrupt company keep their money but *not* their jobs. You
were advocating not punishing the company because some *might* lose their
jobs.
 
>>>Sorry, but hitmen and drug trafficking have little applicability to what 
>>>we are discussing.
>>All illegal "companies" also have legal fronts and have people working for
>>them legally and innocently, yet you have no problem blowing up those
>>companies because of some perceived difference in the exact crime that was
>>committed by the company...
>So this "software thing" that MS does is just a "front" for their world
>domination plans that you alluded to earlier?

One would start to think you actually try to misread everything I say.
I've shown how and why the _comparison_ with "illegal" (eg. drug) outfits
being punished without contemplating consequences for "innocent" workers is
relevant and applicable to how MS should be punished without contemplating
what consequences it *might* have for *some* employees.
You're in a state of denial.
 
>>IOW, those _legally_ employed for someone that does illegal operation A 
>>can screw themselves and live off the street, while those legally employed 
>>for someone that does illegal operation B must be "defended" at all cost 
>>and _therefore_ the latter someone must be allowed to continue illegal 
>>operation B.
>>Not punishing is allowing to continue, and not allowing to continue is
>>punishing and *will* have consequences for some people.
>You neatly neglect the fact that the company who performed operation B has
>monopoly control over the market (as the courts will determine) and can 
>cause major title waves in it, taking many businesses down with them.

J.H.C.!!!
Just let them keep the monopoly control and screw everyone they want
then??????
And *you* neatly "ignore" the fact that MS will not just go away, its products
will not just go away (alas) and those products also will not start working
fine all of a sudden, so the market *will* keep a job.
Next you'll day how much the US depends on MS, thereby proving my point for me
that you earlier called paranoid.
If one company has so much control *and* shows it will abuse it *and* shows
it's not willing to stop that, then something has to be done about it.

>>>>What is accomplished with that?
>>>Nothing, which is why I haven't suggested that course of action.
>>Yes you have. The mere word "punishing", with *your* interpretation of 
>>what that "must" entail, has spurred this discussion where you take the 
>>view of their punishment being not desirable. You (said you) want them not 
>>to be punished for what they have done. In effect, you want the law to 
>>become a sharade.
>I want the law to find a way to remove their monopoly hold on the market 
>and prevent the situation from recurring without destroying those who 
>depend on their products.  Why is that so hard to understand?

You want others to do the hard work while you sit back and shoot everything
down that will actually change something.
There comes a time, due largely to *MS* BTW, that no other recourse remains
than stark measures.
If you still haven't grasped the fact that not punishing now, when hey've been
shown and found guilty, will perpetuate their position and conduct and cement
the illegal actions into the software biz, the hardware biz *and* all of
society for *years* to come (there will be *no* other point of return, since
"mere" illegality has been shown to be unpunishable), then you never will. I
won't continue trying to make you see.

>>>This is quite a paranoid view.
>>No it's not. It's just the logical conclusion of completely free reign for
>>unethical people who don't have to answer to anybody.
>>Have you seen what an impact the oil crisis had on an oil-based society 
>>like the US? Can you imagine how it could be if there wasn't "just" a 
>>cartel of bickering arabic countries that called the shots, but *one* 
>>company that can (and will) focus on just their own profits and power?
>Unfortunately for your example, alternative operating systems are far more
>available than oil was in the 70's during the oil crisis.

I see you have never been a minority-OS advocate who has to deal with the "go
with the flow" and "everybody uses it" and you've also completely missed the
efforts of MS to proprietarise the "IBM compatible PC" into a Windows PC.
Anyway, that's completely irrelevant. If MS were in that position, a lot more
would be at stake than such an important thing as OS.
Oh, and there was plenty of oil then, only just a tad too little for the
"bloatware" cars of the days (see any resemblance?) and
_you_had_to_pay_more_than_you_were_used_to_. Imagine what would happen if one
unethical company controls all electronic infrastructure (which nowadays means
controlling most "real" infrastructure too) and you *have* to go to them for
essential things. The "subscription-based software" would only be the
beginning...
 
>>That's why Standard Oil was broken up, and Microsoft is dangerously close 
>>to that position in the "new oil" that the US possibly relies on even more
>>than on real oil. They've shown to be ruthless and would punish their 
>>likes in an instant if *they* were the ones calling the shots instead of
>>the court, no consideration would be given to "innocent" grunt workers.
>Any corporation would do the same given the same opportunity.  That's the
>fault of the profit incentive.

Maybe, but there's a line that's not supposed to be crossed, and when someone
does, they should be shown they've done the wrong thing.
You are advocating they should be allowed to willfully cross the line *and*
get away with it.
BTW, your dinosaur IBM managed to learn you can only go so far and stayed away
from the line with a long pole. MS has given the finger to the referee many
times now, they've had a yellow card (you probably don't know soccer) and kept
on making fouls. Now is the time for them to get the red card (which means
you're out of the game BTW!!).
The Dutch have a saying "he who doesn't want to hear must feel".

>>You give them the position *and* the signal that they can do whatever they
>>want, and they *will* use it and you *will* be governed by them, whether 
>>or not in theory Washington D.C. still is in power.
>The paranoia resumes.

Says the one state the following when we're not even touching on the control
of infrastructure:
>You neatly neglect the fact that the company who performed operation B has
>monopoly control over the market (as the courts will determine) and can 
>cause major title waves in it, taking many businesses down with them.

(I suppose you mean "tidal waves")
"Don't fuck with us, or we'll cause major tidal waves and take you down"
If they're not supposed to be stopped by law, what's stopping them from just
controlling everything? They went from OS to Office suites to Web browsers
(and trying hard on servers through that) to hardware specifications.
 
>>>We're not dealing with murderers and poison.
>>A human murderer murders humans.
>>A corporate murderer murders corporations.
>>Microsoft is truly a corporate murderer.
>A more alarmist name for a military base is a Kill-Bot Factory. 

Completely irrelevant statement.

>What's your point?

That, contrary to what you said, "we" *are* dealing with murderers. Just not
in the flesh (though it would be "interesting" to see how many have indirectly
lost their lives because they lost their job because their company got the
trigger pulled at them by MS).

>>There's always the question of being aware of things and trying
>>appeasement before waging an all-out war that costs the taxpayers a lot of
>>money (alway consideration nr.1 to self-serving US people, it would seem).
>>Would you have wanted the British not to fight the Germans after becoming
>>aware of the problem and unsuccesfully trying appeasement?
>>Would you have wanted the US not to fight in WW2 at great costs?
>>"Hey man, you waited to long, so just let them have what they violently 
>>and illegally made their own"
>>And you speak of justice??
>Ah... the inevitable Nazi reference.  It's all downhill from here. I would
>like to point out that the circumstances are *quite* different here.

Easy way out, so you don't have to consider the *analogy*.
A) I didn't say Nazis
B) It was meant to show that "something you don't want to happen" sometimes
cannot be attained by just waiting, or playing nice etc.
With everything, there comes a time that you will have to stop being nice and
"wage war" on that which you don't want (or decide you don't object to it
after all). Therefore, there wil always be some time between the start of the
undesirable thing and the start of "waging war". If that's supposed to be an
excuse for not being allowed to "wage war" (and how are you going to enforce
that???? no punishment now!!!!), then you'll get a very unpleasant society in
*no* time: You say something unpleasant to something (may be by mistake)?
BANG.
 
>>>>Like I said, the government can do no good. If they bud in (too) soon,
>>>>they get fried, but when they stay back in the hope (according to
>>>>right-wingers the "knowledge" ofcourse) that "the market" will handle it
>>>>(yeah, monopolies sure tend to break themselves up...) and finally 
>>>>decide it doesn't, they haven't stepped in right away and therefore have
>>>>forfeited their right to interfere. Yeah, right.
>>>The government can literally do whatever it wants.
>>Rubbish. There are many more checks on them than on MS,
>If that were true (which it is not), it would be the government's own 
>fault.

Eh??? What would be the government's fault? That MS is unethical and does
illegal things??? You have got to be joking.
I was countering you blank statement "the government can literally do whatever
it wants". They cannot. There are more checks on the government than on MS, so
MS can do what they want more than the government.
Nice try at turning this to a dicussion about the government, but this was
about MS breaking the law and being taken to justice for it. Are you sure you
don't work for Waggener Edstrom (MS PR firm)??
 
>>and you're advocating that even those checks that are in place for MS
>>should be ignored (since after flagging a checkpoint, you should execute 
>>some respons and you don't want the response).
>I'm not advocating ignoring them at all.  Please reread toward the top of 
>this article if you still believe so.

Yes you do. Those checks are there to say "you may not do this" and "if you do
it anyway, you will be punished".
You don't want them punished (whatever the punishment is), so you want to

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ivaes@hr.nl                                       17-Nov-99 14:17:09
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 14:38:16
Subj: (2/3) Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

ignore the (little) checks there _are_.

>>I already explained that above, and in your reaction you did differntiate
>>between the judicial system and "the government": you said "[it] is [] as 
>>much a part of the government as [] the other branches".
>>IOW, it's not the same.
>Sorry, but this statement:
>You're just trying to redefine the judicial system as part of the 
>government.
>is quite non-sensical.  The judicial system is one of three branches of
>government in the US.

Nice job of taking out of context.
You have been implying that because the judicial system "is one of three
branches of government in the US" (definition 1 of government) it is also not
independent of the DOJ "government" (definition 2, ie. the executive) that is
suing MS as to "prove" that "the government" can do what they want and are
just out to get poor MS. Bad bad government (until they have to be there for
you, that is, like when a tornado strikes or something).
If you want to use one definition to say the government is suing MS and wants
them punished, you cannot also use another definition and say the judicial
system is part of the goverment.
Choose one definition and stick with it.
 
>>That's what I said.
>>IOW, this lawsuit is not tried by "the government".
>It is being tried by a part of the government.  The government being the
>superset of the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches.

Like I said, you try to switch definitions constantly.
If you want government to mean all the branches, then MS is being *sued* by
one part and being *tried* by another, completely independent part based upon
laws made by the third part.
When most people talk about the government in this case, however, they look
upon the plaintiff (the DOJ) as "the government". You're welcome to take a
different view, but be clear and consistent about which definition you use.

>>It's brought by the government, and tried by the impartial justice system.
>>So stop trying to act as if it's the bad old govermint attacking poor old 
>>MS on some bogus claim.
>That's not what I'm stating at all.

No, you're implying something along those lines, just to make the government
look bad so they "cannot" punish MS.
 
>>>Ah.. so you mean the legislature when you refer to "government"?
>>I'd already explained that. It would come in handy if you would actually 
>>read what I wrote.
>And it would come in handy if we both used consistent, correct terminology.

I've used that definition from the start, and you *ignored* the then known
fact of my definition after my first explanation.
 
>>>>>Yes, but in the case of murder, the only person punished is the
>>>>>murderer.
>>>>His/her mother/father loses a son/daughter.
>>>>His/her brother/sister loses a brother/sister.
>>>>His/her wife/husband loses a husband/wife.
>>>>His/her child(ren) lose(s a) father/mother.
>>>>etc.
>>No answer, so I take it you agree that more people than the perpetrator 
>>get to be punished for his/her crime.
>It wasn't relevant enough to deem a response.

It's relevant in that in all crimes more than just the perpetrator get to
suffer the consequences of the crime.
IOW, MS employees feeling the consequences (which *may* be positive too, as
you so easily ignore) is normal.
 
>>>>>In the case of Microsoft, many people will be punished for
>>>>>the transgressions of the few.  This is not just.
>>>>Apart from the debatable innocence of a lot of MS employees:
>>>Debatable innocence??  You're carrying this a bit too far.
>>No I'm not. Like you yourself gave an example of a friend, plenty of 
>>people fully knew what kind of a company they went to work for and did it 
>>anyway.
>You obviously have read your own slant into my example as I have not stated
>that, nor is it the case.

You're saying now he was unaware of what kind of company he was going to work
for, while you said earlier that you had talked him up on it and he did it
anyway. Inconsistent.
 
>>>>Is it just that the company will get away with *punishing* a lot of
>>>>companies and people *without* so much as a trial?
>>>Heretofore the government has let them do so.
>>And you did too. Not a peep.
>I didn't have any access to their proprietary information to know what was
>going on.

Anybody not seeing what was going on when at least looking in the direction
(ie. not looking away) didn't want to see it.
The internal mails only prove they willingly did it. Few people had any doubts
about that unless they didn't want to believe it, for whatever reason.
 
>>But when the gov says "this is it, now it's enough, we tried to ask you 
>>nicely but you said 'screw you'", you are up in arms.
>>Very consistent, very just.
>You haven't bothered comprehending my position I see.

You need glasses then.
You want (the employees of) MS shielded from troubles that others haven't been
shielded from. And now the government finally wants to shield _all_ the others
from the screwing by MS, you want the screwer to be protected.
Yeah right.
MS broke the law, MS should be punished. Simple, no discussion. A company is
responsible for its actions and its employees, and it will have to explain to
those employees why they get screwed if those actions were illegal; this is of
no concern to anyone wanting or trying to uphold the laws.
 
>>But at the very least, the benefits the offender has enjoyed because of 
>>its offense must be taken away.
>>If you steal and are caught, you're not just (trying to be) prevented of 
>>doing it again, you lose the money too. I don't see why MS should be 
>>treated differently and be allowed to keep the money.
>Because there is a lot more riding on MS than a common thief.

All the more reason to make sure MS doesn't misuse its position, as it has
done.
Did the MS-originated delay of the release of Windows 98 wreak havoc on the
industry, like they suggested any prohibition of them releasing it would? It's
the same (non-)argument as yours.
You're just advocating allowing them to hold the entire software industry (and
all parts of society that rely on it!) hostage.
 
>>>Again the paranoia.  Why would MS have any interest in governing the US?
>>>It's too expensive and would really hurt their profit margin for very
>>>little gain.
>>Power. Gates hasn't been that interested in money, it's all about power.
>>If he has one quality, it's that he's willing to forfeit short-term profit 
>>and money to reel in long-term power. Witness the near-giveaway of Windows 
>>with DOS, of Office with Windows and the real giveaway of Internet 
>>Explorer. That hurt their profit margin a lot more at the time.
>And led to a greater dependence on his flagship product, Winxx.

Just like I said, power. If someone is dependent, you have power over him.

>It was a gamble that came out in his favor financially.

The only one of those deals you could call a gamble was the original DOS OEM
deal, where IBM allowed MS to supply MS-DOS to all OEMs. That rode on the
gamble that the PC clone market would boom. It did.
None of the others were gambles, they were just calculated without having to
explain himself to stockholders that only looked at short-term profits. 

Getting the possibility to have the entire US depend on MS would mean enormous
power (and thus money), so if you left Gates the opportunity, he would grab
it. And we all know what an ethical person he is.
 
>>And how can you say "it's too expensive" to govern the US when you also
>>say "the government can do anything it pleases"?
>Might I remind you of the x trillion dollar national debt? Even the 
>government

My, what a display of respect.

>is smart enough to realize that there are certain things it shouldn't do 
>(such as crank out more dollar bills to pay the debt) to solve its 
>problems.  Sure it could attempt these actions, but it would be quite 
>detrimental.  Besides, governing the US creates far too much overhead for a 
>software company that just wants to earn as much profit as possible.

Like I already said, if it renders more power and money (in the longer term,
if necessary), then it is interesting for said company.

>>At least the present government has been chosen and is _trying_ to act for
>>the good of the country, not for their own power and bottom line.
>To which country are you referring?  Certainly not the US.

Yes I was.
Why don't you abolish the government and see how far you get??
 
>>A company could extort all kinds of profit out of the country, according
>>to your "can do anything", so it might be expensive but many times more
>>profitable.
>Right, and then after the bloody revolution what will happen?  With every
>action comes a cost.  Just because something can be done doesn't mean that 
>it should or it would benefit the doer.

Exactly what I said all along. With every action comes a cost.
Closing a consent decree deal with MS has a low cost (in several regards).
Sueing MS and getting them punished has a higher cost (ditto).
Letting them get away with breaking the law *and* being found guilty *without*
any consequences will in the end bring higher cost, which might even be
bloody, like you say.

>>>They can be handcuffed without being handcuffed and beaten.
>>You've said it so many times, I guess you have a fool-proof plan for doing
>>this. Let's all hear it then.
>I don't have enough information or expertise at my disposal to make such a
>determination, and neither do you.

Then you can hardly be so confident that it's possible, feasible and
desirable.
 
>>>The government can prevent them from executing monopoly control on the
>>>market without "punishing" MS.
>>A) No.
>I suppose that depends on how you define "punishing".

Obviously. I use the "layman's" term, as in "you break the law, you are
caught, tried and found guilty, you are punished".
 
>>I guess you adhere to the school of thought that says "orders are orders, 
>>no matter what they are".
>That depends on what the "orders" are.  If the orders are, "make this piece 
>of code work", then sure. If the orders are, "keep this LAN operational", 
>then sure.  If the orders are, "Kill that pregnant mother and her small
>child", then no.  I hope you can see the difference.

We're talking about a company, so look at things from a company perspective,
not a physical human being perspective. The orders were "kill that company"
(literally "cut those fuckers off" and "we have to smile while we pull the
trigger").
And there's no line to be drawn there, if you want employees or subordinates
to be exempt from punishment via "orders are orders", then that goes for every
order. If it doesn't hold for some cases, then the rule as a whole doesn't
hold. So why should they be allowed to kill other companies and use "orders"
while some other action should not allow such a "defense"?

>>I have no problem with that. I can view your "prevention" as (part of) my
>>"punishment", but you seem to have a problem with my "punishment" as part 
>>of your "prevention".
>If they are one in the same, then we are arguing semantics.

You didn't even ask what people meant by "punishment" before you went off on
this tangent, and you sure didn't stop arguing when it was explained that the
"punishment" was unspecified and might be something else entirely from what
you had assumed.
 
>>>Punishment would be deliberately disadvantaging them with respect to
>>>competitors.
>>Why not? They've used illegal tactics to advantage themselves with respect 
>>to competitors. Doing nothing with the advantageous position of MS is only
>>rewarding them and prohibits free competition and therefore doesn't 
>>prevent it from happening again because it only sustains what has already 
>>been happening.
>Which is why I have not recommended that course of action.

Like not choosing is also choosing (a default gets taken), not punishing is
also choosing for letting MS get away with it.
That you are not saying MS should not get away with it doesn't mean that what
you propose (or don't propose, since you don't actually add anything
constructive as far as possible actions are concerned) doesn't amount to
letting them get away with it.
 
>>>And who decides exactly which companies receive this "aide"?
>>I don't know, that's a practical matter. The ministry of economical 
>>affairs?
>On the contrary, it's a very impractical and implausible matter.

Sigh... if you can read what I said the wrong way, you sure as hell will,
won't you?
"A practical matter" means "has to be implemented, but the way of
implementation is irrelevant to the concept that has been chosen".
It may be impractical for eg. a ministry to decide such things, but then again
it may not. Companies here can get lots of grants and aides for this and that,
and that sure seems to work OK.
 
>>>How is that fair to the companies that don't receive said "aide"?  It's
>>>still playing favorites and is ultimately destructive.
>>It's just as fair as all other kinds of fincancial aids like job programs,
>>attracting high-wages companies, ....
>>It's not playing favourites if you use it to offset disadvantages. I 
>>didn't say "finance upstarts" for nothing. They are at a great 
>>disadvantage against behemoths who've already sewn up the market and shut 
>>out newcomers.
>And what about the recently established upstarts that earned their current
>position without aide? What of them being disadvantaged by an upstart that 
>has received such aide?

If the other upstart weres all they have to worry about, then we wouldn't be
having this discussion. Also, once those startups are established, the aide
might be irrelevant (it might only apply to people actually starting a
company, not those that have an already running company; this is a kind of
aide we have here, and nobody's complaining).
There are always peope that were just too early, just too late etc. It also
goes for having been just in time for *not* having to pay for something. Do
you complain when the video card's price drops soon after you bought it? Do
you complain when some house tax is raised just after you bought yours?

>>Even your beloved "innocent employees" of MS might start their own 
>>companies with their ideas and inject some real innovation into the biz 
>>again. Or do you think they are innocent and mindless drones?
>They can be innocent without being mindless drones. Amazing how prejudiced 
>you are.

Ah, I see, another negative could be read here that wasn't meant that way, so
you'll choose the worst.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ivaes@hr.nl                                       17-Nov-99 14:17:09
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 14:38:16
Subj: (3/3) Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

At least I assume they are intelligent and independently choosing peopl, while
you portray them as poor, mute and orders-taking victims of some imaginary
"higher management" that we can all piss and moan over.
As if that isn't prejudice.

>>You seem to be stuck into some kind of MS vision by assuming many more 
>>jobs are riding on the assumption. I think you're very wrong.
>In the short term, I am right.  In the long term, you may be right.

Regardless of the truth of this claim ("I am right"?? You sound like Nixon),
this all has to been in a long-term context. This isn't a battle for a week.
 
>>Disadvantaged? You mean pushed out of the market by MS. The actions we
>>shouldn't be punishing according to you. That's what I said, that "the MS
>>way" has cost jobs, and you want to perpetuate it.
>Not at all.  If you read my responses you'd know that is not what I am
>advocating.

You may not be advocating it, but what you are saying amounts to letting them
get away with it and perpetuating "the MS way" when the day is done.
If you were "only" advocating it, there would be no discussion. I am only
trying to make you see that what you say has consequences that you say you
don't want. To no avail, it seems, and it costs me too much time to continue
doing so.
 
>>By definition, the guilt for MS's actions lies with MS employees. The only
>>part where you may be right to some extent is which employees those were, 
>>but alas the law cannot make that distinction for the company, so it has 
>>to do that itself.
>So you're saying that the big-wigs can point out Janitor Joe as the guilty
>party in MS and throw him to the government's pack of wolves?  I don't 
>think it works that way.

Eh??? *You* started about janitors losing their jobs because of MS big-wigs
"distributing" punishment of MS over their "innocent" employees.
I only say that MS has to be punished, and if that *were* done eg. via afine,
then the *MS management* would take any choices as to allocation of the "hurt"
of that fine within the company. The law does not, the judge does not and the
government (the "executive") does not. MS management does, just like they
decided those illegal actions (but, mind you, we had a lot of "normal" MS
employees barge into advocacy fora and other "PR stuff"), so if any MS
employees *were* to lose their jobs after a supposed fine, then you'd have to
attack MS management, not the law enforcers.

>>Why haven't you said onec you hated those in charge at MS for putting 
>>their employees in such a position?
>Because none of it affects me personally.

But it's important enough to _imply_ letting them off the hook here...
We are not responsible for MS doing illegal actions and therefore also not for
the consequences. Neither is the judicial system or the government.
MS (ie. its management) is. That's where you have to fight you've picked over
defending the jobs and (thuis) livelyhoods of the MS employees who only took
orders.
 
>>>You've not demonstrated how punishing MS would be beneficial.  The US has
>>Yes I have.
>>It will show them that they cannot do all they want.
>>It will show them and the people that the laws should be abided and
>>perpetrators *will* be caught.
>>I've also (first) not ruled out that part of the punishment should be 
>>actions that will prevent the illegal actions from continuing and being 
>>repeated and (later) have said that those actions *should* be a part of 
>>any punishment.
>>And the fact remains that a punishment need not be beneficial other than
>>showing that you will not be able to enjoy the fruits of illegal actions.
>But I thought we were going to fund upstarts...  What you are saying is all

That was an "example" of the possibility of using the illegally obtained money
from MS (if it were to be fined) for undoing part of those actions.

>fine and good, but the economic impacts of any such actions need to be
>considered (which was my original point).

They don't _need_ to be, since the law provides for what needs to be in these
cases. The impacts _may_ be considered, as long as the crime is punished.
Letting MS keep the fruits of their illegal actions is not punishing them and
therefore is not an option in the law.
 
>>>nearly always favored the rights of the individual over that of the 
>>>larger group. Nazis are allowed to conduct peaceful public speeches.

Note how you brought up Nazis the first (the only) time.

>>>The courts would rather let a guilty man go free than convict an innocent
>>>man. Demonstrations of this fact occur throughout US history.
>>Blahblahblah.
>>This is not about an individual and it's not some"body" innocent either.
>Legally, a corporation is its own "individual".

And the only "individual" in question is not at all innocent.
 
>>There should be no punishment for someone being found innocent. There 
>>should be for someone guilty. You can argue all you want about the 
>>beneficiality of it, but someone found guilty must be punished in some 
>>way. Getting a reward should be reserved for those behaving (more than) 
>>well.
>"Blahblahblah."

Yeah, whatever. I'm not trying to get off a guilty "person" by obfuscating
terms and dragging in irrelevancies.

-- 
Illya Vaes   (ivaes@hr.nl)        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel +31.30.2653273, Fax 2653385           Not speaking for anyone but myself

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Holland Railconsult BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: wsonna@ibm.net                                    17-Nov-99 13:42:20
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 14:38:16
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: wsonna@ibm.net (William Sonna)

On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 06:12:46, jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt) 
wrote:

> >>>William Sonna
> >>>Computer Shopper =  Large type, glossy ads, superficial reviews and 
> >>>short sentences.
> 
> >>jeff glatt
> >>hahahahahah!!! Glossy ads?? Apparently, you've either never read the
> >>magazine (which is likely since you obviously don't know what a VAR
> >>is), or you never read past the first 30 pages or so.
>  
> >HaHaHaHaHaha!!!!  YES!  Glossy adds! Shiny adds! Lots 'n lots of 'em!!
> 
> Uh no. What you obviously have there is a copy of "Big, Bouncing
> Bosoms" magazine. You've been stuck all alone with your computer for
> so long, doing altogether unnatural things with your beloved, oddball
> niche OS, that you can no longer tell the difference between a pinout
> and a pinup.
> 
> >Don't tell me you love it for the editorial content; I won't believe 
> >you.
> 
> You should have gotten a clue when you read the "Letters to the
> Editor" page, and the first one began "I'm a horny OS/2 slut monkey,
> and I really love getting ----ed by IBM executives. I want them to
> make me get down on my knees and BEG to pay thousands of dollars to
> upgrade to OS/2 Warp Server for my $800 Dell computer".
> 

You finally got published, you rascal!!  Way to go!

I'm genuinely happy for you!

Now that you've gone public with another of your "hobbies", care to 
clue us in about hard drives?

> >You mean I've been vicitimized by those home-PC-improvement scam 
> >artists praying on the elderly in big cities across America? 
> 
> Yes. They stole your brain. You'll need a new one.

Let me guess - I should start by looking in.............Computer 
Shopper.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: puck@blood.kom                                    17-Nov-99 07:52:17
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 14:38:16
Subj: Re: Stealing from Xerox and some sane discussion on remedies

From: Ho Yo Kong vs. Godzilla <puck@blood.kom>

Jim Frost <jimf@frostbytes.com> wrote:

>Kelly Robinson wrote:
>> I've already mentioned Apple, who has been "pulling a microsoft" to so many
>> schools that people ignored the legitimacy of the 'ease of use' philosophy
>> Steve Jobs stole from Xerox.
>
>I don't want to rain on your parade, but Apple actually licensed the
>technology from Xerox.  (Not many people know that, but it's true.)  As I
>recall they paid a flat $1M for it, then they pumped more than $1B into
>improving it.

macs suks! steel xerox still suk...bwahahahahahaha

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: ... (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: fegehrke@worldnet.att.net                         17-Nov-99 08:58:23
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 14:38:16
Subj: Re: Windows posting activitiy...

From: Forrest Gehrke <fegehrke@worldnet.att.net>

rj friedman wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:47:06, "David T. Johnson"
> <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote:
> 
> It seems that our resident "Windows Advocates" here, McCoy, Glatt, and
> Robinson, have been posting here more frequently and their posts are
> more antagonstic than usual.  Is this a response to Microsoft's recent
> court defeats?
> 
> If you've been on advocacy for any length of time you will
> notice that every time MS is in trouble - usually with being
> late with a buggy product release, or facing the release of
> an `opponent's superior product, all of a sudden there are a
> raft of MS propoganda parroting stooges that show up out of
> the blue (Robinson and Mulligan being but the latest in a
> long string of ventriloquists' dummies). Between the
> disaster that Windows 2ooo is turning out to be, and the
> whupping MS got at their monopoly trial, these shills are
> having to work overtime.
> 

There are a few more new ones claiming to be former OS/2 users
frequenting the place ("I switched; therefor you need to").
But what happened to their longest-lasting exponent Debeste?

What with Judge Jackson's scathing F of F pronouncement,
the late and becoming later W2K release, and the continuing
discovery of security leaks, there is a greater than
usual desperation to their squawks and rants.

An interesting addition is that some of these posters
are also showing up in COLA with separate attacks on the
Linux advocates. With the increasing popularity of Linux
some guns are now being aimed at them. The argument is 
a little different: "Installation awful; NT4 smooth as
a baby's hehind".

Is MS unleashing the storm-troopers?
//

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: AT&T WorldNet Services (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se                  17-Nov-99 14:07:10
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 14:38:16
Subj: Not even Ballmer likes NT

From: "Lennart Gahm" <lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se>

http://nyheter.idg.se/display.pl?ID=991117-CS18
At Comdex, according to an article in Swedish "Computer Sweden",  Steve
Ballmer and Jim Allchin said things like below (CS is in swedish and i have
tried to express in english parts from it):

Steve Ballmer tries to sell W2000 by claiming it doesn't have the same
problems as NT, "DLL-Hell is soon a memory".

My comment:
Has he not heard that Novell NetWare, Unix/Linux or OS/2 Warp for e-business
have newer had this kind of problems? Why wait another 6month for a solution
that maybe works?
All it takes is a Format C: and install one of the above.


Allchin claims that "65% of restarts of NT is planned and 35% is because of
some error.
He claims that W2000 will be more stable".

My comment:
Hello, can anyone do worse?
If you need a stable system chose between Novell NetWare, Unix/Linux or OS/2
Warp for e-business.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Telia Internet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            17-Nov-99 14:17:19
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 14:38:16
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 01:30:53, Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:

> Karel Jansens wrote:
> > 
[snip]
> > 
> > BTW, Marty, there seems to be something wrong with your X-version of
> > Mozilla. When you post with OS/2 all the fields end up right, but with
> > the AIX version some of the fields appear as if they have shifted in
> > Pronews (like  a lenght of zero lines and "INVALID DATE"). It doesn't
> > bother me (really!), but there might be something else wrong in there
> > <G>.
> 
> Yeah.  The AIX version is kinda rickety at times.  We just upgraded to 4.7
> (hence relevance to the topic ;-)) and I wonder if it was happening before
that
> or not.
> 
> Though, when I view it in Netscape 4.6 for OS/2, it comes out right:
> Lines: 11
> Date:  Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:59:49 -0500
> 
> Strange.  Perhaps it's just a ProNews-ism?

Yeah, probably something to do with the sequence of the headers that 
makes Pronews choke (Darn my hide for using this outdated and defunct 
OS/2 software!). I wonder why they're so different; it's two versions 
of the same program, after all. Did Mozilla learn a trick from Word?

I have a vague recollection of one or two other zero-length posts from
you, but they're not in my buffer anymore (I do clean up from time to 
time, honestly), so I can't tell you if they came from AIX.

I've been thinking about getting 4.7 for my little Linux partition 
myself. Does this version - finally - do offline reading in Unix? I've
been sniffing around for a good offline reader for Linux, but for the 
love of ... can't find any (slrnpull would be nice - if it worked!!!).
Linux simply doesn't seem to have a newsprogram of Pronews's quality 
(apart from its beef with AIX, that is <G>). I know of X-Agent, which 
is kind of nice, if you can live with a MTBF of x minutes...

Karel Jansens
jansens_at_attglobal_dot_net

Microsoft MVP -- Not!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: ktkelvin@yahoo.com                                17-Nov-99 22:52:16
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 14:38:16
Subj: Re: Not even Ballmer likes NT

From: "Kelvin Tsang" <ktkelvin@yahoo.com>

I tried to install WSeB and W2K Server on the same (old) machine
last week, W2K Server is terribly slow (as a server) on both
LAN activities and local tasks, while the WSeB is surprisingly
fast. Tested both NOS for two days with the same services :
Print Server (JetAdmin), WEB Server (intranet), Proxy, FTP &
Telnet on a small LAN with five (P-II 400 & 64MB) Win95 clients.

Config/Spec of the old machine :
Pentium 133, 72MB EDO SIMM, 1.2GB IDE HDD, 8X IDE CDrom Drive,
3C905B-TX, S3 Trio 64 V+ 1MB.

Never tried to install NT on it, maybe I'll try it by next week.

BTW, during the tests, W2K Server crashed once while accessing
to a HP-UX machine through samba.

Kelvin



Lennart Gahm <lennart-remove-@plg.-remove-a.se> wrote in message
news:yraanegcytnfr.flcykh0.pminews@news1.telia.com...
> http://nyheter.idg.se/display.pl?ID=991117-CS18
> At Comdex, according to an article in Swedish "Computer Sweden",  Steve
> Ballmer and Jim Allchin said things like below (CS is in swedish and i
have
> tried to express in english parts from it):
>
> Steve Ballmer tries to sell W2000 by claiming it doesn't have the same
> problems as NT, "DLL-Hell is soon a memory".
>
> My comment:
> Has he not heard that Novell NetWare, Unix/Linux or OS/2 Warp for
e-business
> have newer had this kind of problems? Why wait another 6month for a
solution
> that maybe works?
> All it takes is a Format C: and install one of the above.
>
>
> Allchin claims that "65% of restarts of NT is planned and 35% is because
of
> some error.
> He claims that W2000 will be more stable".
>
> My comment:
> Hello, can anyone do worse?
> If you need a stable system chose between Novell NetWare, Unix/Linux or
OS/2
> Warp for e-business.
>
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Still die-hard fan of OS/2 ! (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          17-Nov-99 09:59:19
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 14:38:16
Subj: Re: OS/2 on large hard disks

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

Try:

http://service.software.ibm.com/os2ddpak/html/647679D565C73E0F862565980068EFB0.
html

"Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> 
> Somebody sent the required file to me a month ago, but I seem to have
> lost it. Now I have finally found the time to install OS/2 once again on
> my Intel machine. Looking for the right link on the IBM website I found
> nothing. Could somebody point me to the right file please?
> 
> --
> Fan of Woody Allen
> User of MacOS, BeOS, LinuxPPC
> Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dbachmanNOdbSPAM@ionet.net.invalid                17-Nov-99 07:33:14
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 14:38:17
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows... 

From: Scatter Gatherer <dbachmanNOdbSPAM@ionet.net.invalid>

In article <T3uY3.1$874.8381@news.bctel.net>, mike@lionsgate.com (Mike
Stephen) wrote:
> Stability of Beos is a bit better than Windows, but not as stable
> as
> Warp OS/2.  It is about the same as Linux.  I Was able to lock up a
> few different apps during the week that required a hard reboot to
> clear. The multitasking is a bit clunky as well.  Warp seems to
> have a
> best compromise scheduler that allows multitasking
> background/foreground apps better than any other operating system
> to
> date.  Pity that some developers seem to miss out on this aspect of
> Warp OS/2.  I can only guess that it is not due to stupidity, but
> rather that these same developers are simply not aware of how high
> the
> bar has been placed with Warp OS/2.  If all you have ever used
> includes Windows and Linux, then Beos might seem to look good.
> However from a long time user of OS/2Warp,  can say that Beos
> needs a
> whole lot more to even be considered in the same league as Warp.
> So the search goes on.  I want to replace Warp Os/2, but so far
> nothing is anywhere near as easy to use or as reliable.  too bad
> IBM
> sold out to Microsoft and basically buried OS/2....

Forgive my ignorance, but could you expand a bit on how BeOS
multitasking is "clunky", and what it means to "allow. . .multitasking
background/foreground apps better"?

I'm also curious as to what you were doing/running to have such
problems with lock ups.


Donald



* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: http://www.remarq.com: The World's Usenet/Discuss
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               17-Nov-99 08:02:01
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 14:38:17
Subj: Re: Not even Ballmer likes NT

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 22:52:32 -0000, Kelvin Tsang wrote:

>while the WSeB is surprisingly
>fast. 

Nothing surprise about that - it's known for it.

>Tested both NOS for two days with the same services :
>Print Server (JetAdmin), WEB Server (intranet), Proxy, FTP &
>Telnet on a small LAN with five (P-II 400 & 64MB) Win95 clients.

Now try with several hundred clients - all hit the server at the same
time.....


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: djohnson@isomedia.com                             17-Nov-99 08:51:10
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 14:38:17
Subj: Re: OS/2 on large hard disks

From: "David T. Johnson" <djohnson@isomedia.com>


"Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> 
> Somebody sent the required file to me a month ago, but I seem to have
> lost it. Now I have finally found the time to install OS/2 once again on
> my Intel machine. Looking for the right link on the IBM website I found
> nothing. Could somebody point me to the right file please?

Update the installation disks here:

http://service.software.ibm.com/os2ddpak/html/os_2comp/installa/index.htm

After installation, device driver fixpack 1 is here:

ftp://service.boulder.ibm.com/ps/products/os2/fixes/DDPak/xr_d001/

If you are using IDE disk drivers, a superb replacement for the IBM
IBM1S506.ADD driver is the DANIS506.ADD driver available from Hobbes at:

http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/system/drivers/storage/danis506.zip

The DANIS506.ADD driver supports busmastering on most of the current
chipsets, supports UDMA/66 drives, and power management.  



> 
> --
> Fan of Woody Allen
> User of MacOS, BeOS, LinuxPPC
> Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: caw@bcc.louisville.edu                            17-Nov-99 12:41:19
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 16:33:03
Subj: Re: does anybody actually use OS/2, and why??

From: Chris Worth <caw@bcc.louisville.edu>


Carl Kaufmann wrote:

> Joar wrote:
> >
> > I actually wonder about this.
>
> Oh look, another one.
>
> In response to the subject:
> Yes, and why do you care?
>
> Go back under your bridge, troll.

LOL, well he needs somethign to do while windoze whatever reboots.  So
he wonders what it would be like to use a reliable OS.  it really isn't
that hard to imagine. :)



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Louisville (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 17-Nov-99 18:02:20
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 16:33:03
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <80tter$1nq$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>>>> Curtis Bass writes:
>
>>>>>>> Reread the material you snipped, Curtis:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> MT] I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>>>>>>> MT] classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>>>>> MT] so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>>>>> MT] The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>>>>>>> MT] AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is ZipOutputStream.class.
>
>>>>>>>> Mike, if you are reading this, what did you mean?
>
>>>>>>> He meant what he wrote, Curtis.  Why ignore the written evidence?
>
>>>>>> I did mean what I wrote, and what I wrote is that I can read the file 
>>>>>> in question, which is javainuf.exe.
>
>>>>> Illogical, Mike.  You wrote "I was able to read the file" and then
>>>>> went on to reference what you read "The first file in classes.zip".
>
>>>> You're leaving out the fact that I gave you several statistics about
>>>> classes.zip itself, which I obtained by reading the file javainuf.exe.
>>>> The point was to demonstrate that WinZip can read javainuf.exe
>
>>> If that was your point, Mike, then why refer to the first and last
>>> files in classes.zip?
>
>> To show that I can read that file "in a meaninful fashion", as the
>> rest of the sentence indicates...
>
>"That file" is classes.zip, Mike.

Not so.  The exchange preceeding the paragraph above is this:

DT] >>> On the contrary, I know exactly what I'm talking about.
  ] >
MT] >> Obviously not.  The file you're talking about is a self-extracting exe,
MT] >> the contents of which can be viewed by any number of programs on any
MT] >> number of platforms.

DT] >>> See above for why I was steering you in that direction, Mike.
  ] >
MT] >> And see above for your incorrect conclusions regarding the file in
MT] >> question.  You've tricked yourself into a trap, Dave.
  ] >
DT] >Prove it, Mike, if you think you can.

Since when is "classes.zip" a self-extracting exe?  Answer: It isn't.

I was able to extract classes.zip from "that file" (i.e. javainuf.exe) 
without running OS/2.  To prove that classes.zip was extracted successfully, 
I gave you some statistics about what *it* contained.  Without that 
information, you could accuse me of knowing the contents of the executable, 
but being unable to read that contents in a meaninful fashion.

>>>> in a meaninful fashion (unlike LIST, which you keep comparing it to).
>
>>> LIST can provide meaningful information, Mike.
>
>> But not as meaningful as WinZip, in this case, which is why your
>> comparison is absurd.
>
>On the contrary, it depends on what kind of information you're looking
>for, Mike, so my comparison is not absurd.

You're lying again, Dave:

DT] > I tell you that I used LIST under OS/2 to "read" the file, but that
DT] > doesn't make it comprehensible to a human, Mike.
 
Earlier, you claimed using LIST doesn't make it comprehensible to a human,
in an effort to show that I could not get any "meaningful" information out
of the file without using OS/2.

>>>> I might, for example, mention to you that I am able to read a
>>>> particular book, then go on to cite information about the first
>>>> chapter within that book.
>
>>> Like the title of the first chapter.  And then the title of the
>>> last chapter.  The book in this case would be classes.zip.
>
>> No, Dave, the book is javainuf.exe, and the chapter in question is
>> classes.zip.
>
>Then what are "AbstractMethodError.class" and "ZipOutputStream.class",
>Mike?

Those would be sentences within the chapter, Dave.  It proves that I
can read the chapter itself, and not just the table of contents of the
book.

>>>>> Remember, you were referring to classes.zip long before you ever
>>>>> mentioned javainuf.exe; I had to coax that top-level filename out
>>>>> of you.
>
>>>> And, when I gave you the top level filename, that's the file we've been
>>>> talking about.  Tell me, Dave, what's the most recent file I referred 
>>>> to *before* the paragraph you mention?
>
>>> Irrelevant, Mike, given that I'm dealing with your paragraph, not the
>>> one before it.
>
>> Quite relevant, as it demonstrates that you're taking the paragraph
>> out of context.  When this fact is brought to your attention, you refuse 
>> to consider the context.
>
>On the contrary, I'm sticking to the context provided by the paragraph
>itself.

Yet, when taking a paragraph out of the article in which it appears,
the context of the paragraph is lost.

>> In fact, you consider the context "irrelevent".  That's because it 
>> shows that you're completely wrong.
>
>Balderdash, Mike.  You're own text clearly shows you referring to
>classes.zip, thus you're the one who is completely wrong.

Not at all.  My own text clearly shows that "the file" refers to
javainuf.exe.  When I refer to classes.zip, I clearly say "classes.zip".

>>>> Yes, it's javainuf.exe.
>
>>> And in paragraphs before that, you were referring to classes.zip, Mike.
>
>> And intelligent readers can easily understand which file I'm referring
>> to at which time.
>
>So, do "intelligent readers" easily understand that you're referring to
>classes.zip when you mention AbstractMethodError.class, Mike?

When I say "classes.zip", I'm obviously referring to "classes.zip".  When
I said "the file", I was clearly referring to "javainuf.exe".

>>>>>> Haven't you learned your lesson by now?
>
>>>>> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't learned his lesson by now.
>
>>>> Amusingly, here you are trying to claim that the subject of *my* sentence
>>>> is what *you* misinterpreted it to be.  Tsk, tsk.
>
>>> What alleged misinterpretation, Mike?  
>
>> Your misinterpretation, Dave.
>
>What alleged misinterpretation of mine, Mike?  

Having that much trouble following along.

>>> Are you denying that you wrote the quotation above?
>
>> Of course not, Dave; I'm telling you that your absurd misinterpretation 
>> is both wrong
>
>Illogical, Mike, given that your reference to AbstractMethodError.class
>is an unambiguous indication that you're talking about classes.zip.

When I write "classes.zip", I mean "classes.zip".  When I write "the
file", I'm talking about javainuf.exe.

>> and dishonest.  
>
>What's allegedly dishonest about the truth, Mike?

Have you stopped beating your wife, Dave?

>> You aren't fooling anybody.
>
>Irrelevant, given that I'm not trying to fool anybody, Mike.

On the contrary, your continuous denials of the obvious show you
*are* trying to fool people.  Or, you're at least trying to fool 
yourself.

>> When you keep arguing points that you've clearly lost, you only make
>> yourself look even more pathetic.
>
>How ironic, coming from someone who looks even more pathetic.

"I know you are, but what am I?"  Grow up, Dave.

     - Mike




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: andrew@netneurotic.de                             17-Nov-99 19:36:00
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 16:33:03
Subj: Re: OS/2 on large hard disks

From: andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm)

David T. Johnson <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote:

> "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:
> > 
> > Somebody sent the required file to me a month ago, but I seem to have
> > lost it. Now I have finally found the time to install OS/2 once again on
> > my Intel machine. Looking for the right link on the IBM website I found
> > nothing. Could somebody point me to the right file please?
> 
> Update the installation disks here:
> 
> http://service.software.ibm.com/os2ddpak/html/os_2comp/installa/index.htm
> 
> After installation, device driver fixpack 1 is here:
> 
> ftp://service.boulder.ibm.com/ps/products/os2/fixes/DDPak/xr_d001/

DO I really need this? I am trying to set up a drivers CD for all the
components in my Intel machine for all the operating systems I might
want to run on it.

I'd better find out soon what exactly I might need for the OS/2 section.
 
> If you are using IDE disk drivers, a superb replacement for the IBM
> IBM1S506.ADD driver is the DANIS506.ADD driver available from Hobbes at:
> 
> http://hobbes.nmsu.edu/pub/os2/system/drivers/storage/danis506.zip
> 
> The DANIS506.ADD driver supports busmastering on most of the current
> chipsets, supports UDMA/66 drives, and power management.  

Why not give it a try... is it free (GNU?)?

-- 
Fan of Woody Allen
User of MacOS, BeOS, LinuxPPC
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: andrew@netneurotic.de                             17-Nov-99 19:35:29
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 16:33:03
Subj: Re: OS/2 on large hard disks

From: andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm)

Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov> wrote:

> Try:
> 
> http://service.software.ibm.com/os2ddpak/html/647679D565C73E0F862565980068
> EFB0.html

Thanks. Seems to be it.

> "Andrew J. Brehm" wrote: > > Somebody sent the required file to me a month
> ago, but I seem to have > lost it. Now I have finally found the time to
> install OS/2 once again on > my Intel machine. Looking for the right link
> on the IBM website I found > nothing. Could somebody point me to the right
> file please? > > -- > Fan of Woody Allen > User of MacOS, BeOS, LinuxPPC >
> Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza


-- 
Fan of Woody Allen
User of MacOS, BeOS, LinuxPPC
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: timbol@netcom.com                                 17-Nov-99 18:40:24
  To: All                                               17-Nov-99 16:33:03
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)

In article <80tusp$26a$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
Dave Tholen <tholenantispam@hawaii.edu> wrote:
>Mike Timbol writes:
>
>>>>>>> Because if it did, you'd get an error, perhaps not identical to the
>>>>>>> one InfoZip generated, but an error nonetheless.
>
>>>>>> So you're claiming that your copy of javainuf.exe, which you claimed
>>>>>> to have downloaded from IBM's web site, is corrupt, or damaged in
>>>>>> some other way,
>
>>>>> I'm claiming the file is incomplete, Mike.
>
>>>>>> but you did not realize it at first?
>
>>>>> Netscape issued no error message, Mike.  All the other files that were
>>>>> downloaded were fine.  Given that there are two runtime environments
>>>>> to choose from, and the fact that I chose to install the one without
>>>>> unicode fonts, I had no reason to extract javainuf.exe until you
>>>>> claimed that you looked at its contents.
>
>>>> In fact, even *after* I told you that I looked at its contents, you
>>>> *still* did not bother to extract the contents of javainuf.exe.
>>>> Isn't that correct?  Because, if you had, you would have realized that 
>>>> your copy of the file was incomplete.
>
>>> You hadn't even told me the name of the top-level file at that time,
>>> Mike.
>
>> You're full of shit, Dave:
>
>> MT] >> For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
>> MT] >> when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.
>>   ] >
>> DT] > Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
>> DT] > let's take a closer look at that file.
>>   ]
>> DT] > Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file
and
>> DT] > on an OS/2 system to boot!  
>>
>> Obviously, your quoted text occurs *after* I told you the name of the
>> file, and you're claiming I must have run the executable file on OS/2 to 
>> look at the contents.
>
>> You came to that incorrect conclusion because you did not even bother
>> to run your copy of the file on your own system.
>
>I had already successfully run the other runtime environment, Mike.
>Why run both?

To determine whether or not there is something wrong with your copy
of the file.  

I claimed that I used WinZip to look at the contents.  You claim that 
all unzip tools should behave the same.  Yet you were unable to use 
your unzip tool to view the contents of the file in question.  

You then immediately concluded that I was lying, instead of coming to 
the correct conclusion that there was something wrong with *your* copy 
of the file, a possibility you did not even consider.

>>>> In fact, I told you that I used WinZip as my extraction tool.
>
>>> Seems like a reasonable tool to use on a zip file like classes.zip,
>>> Mike.
>
>> Except that, since you *know* I'm referring to javainuf.exe at that point, 
>> you're lying again:
>
>Balderdash, Mike.  You're just dishonestly pointing to the wrong text,
>chronologically, again.

Bullshit.  I told you *SPECIFICALLY* that "I used WinZIP to unzip the
file".  "the file" is javainuf.exe.

>> MT] >> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
>> MT] >
>> MT] >Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
>>   ] >
>> DT] >] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
>> DT] >]  End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is
not
>> DT] >]  a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In
the
>> DT] >]  latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be found 
on
>> DT] >]  the last disk(s) of this archive.
>> DT] >] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
>> DT] >] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
>> DT] >]        and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.
>>
>> Obviously you know I'm talking about javainuf.exe, since that's the file 
>> you tried to use InfoZip on.
>
>That's because the above error message was generated *after* you told me
>the name of the top-level file, Mike.

Tell me, Dave, why did you want the name of the file in question?  Obviously
because you wanted to claim that I must be running OS/2 in order to read 
the contents of the file.  Why did you think that?  Because you did not
even consider that the file could be a self-extracting archive that WinZip
could read.

>That doesn't change the fact that
>you were talking about the contents from classes.zip long before you even
>told me the name of the top-level file.

Yes, Dave, long before this point, I *was* talking about the contents of
classes.zip.  However, did you ever doubt that I could use WinZip on a
zip file?  No.  You claimed I could not use WinZip on javainuf.exe.
That's why I proved that I could.  That's why someone posted a .jpg
file of that very thing.  That's why your claim is wrong.

>>>>>> Is that the way you want to explain your mistake?
>
>>>>> It's a fact that the file download was incomplete, Mike.  It's also a
>>>>> fact that there was no indication of that until Marty stated that he
>>>>> was able to unzip the file with InfoZip.  I at least came to the
>>>>> correct conclusion that the file was to blame, so I downloaded another
>>>>> copy.  
>
>>>> No, Dave, you came to the incorrect conclusion that I must have been
>>>> running OS/2 to extract the contents of the file.
>
>>> If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
>>> doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
>>> choices do you have, Mike?
>
>> You are proceeding from a false assumption.  You claim that unzip 
>> doesn't work, when, in fact, it does work, provided the input is 
>> complete.
>
>You're presupposing knowledge of the completeness of the input, Mike.

Not at all.  Unzip will work on a complete input regardless of 
your personal knowledge of the completeness of the input.  You 
simply assumed that your copy of the file was complete.  That 
assumption turned out to be incorrect.

>> The correct conclusion, in your case, is that your copy of the file is 
>> incomplete.
>
>Illogical, given that all the other files were fine, Mike.

Thus, we come to the fundamental, and fatal flaw of Dave's logic.  The
correct conclusion is, in your mind, illogical.  Nevertheless, it is
the correct conclusion.  How is this possible?


Interestingly, the fact that you did *not* come to this conclusion
demonstrates that you lied elsewhere, as well:

MT] >> Further, if you can use InfoZip to extract the contents of the file
MT] >> yourself, then you have your own proof that one is not required to
MT] >> run the archive to extract the files.
  ]  
DT] > I followed IBM's instructions, Mike.

If you had really follows IBM's instructions, as you claimed, you would
have known the file in question was incomplete.  Obviously, you didn't
follow their instructions at all.

>>>>> Amazing that people jumped to the erroneous conclusion that InfoZip was
>>>>> somehow less capable at unzipping the file than WinZip, and that it
makes
>>>>> OS/2 look bad.  But I'm accustomed to seeing such erroneous conclusions
>>>>> from people in this newsgroup.
>
>>>> So tell me, would your conclusion that I must have been running OS/2
>>>> be one of these "erroneous conclusions"?
>
>>> If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
>>> doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
>>> choices do you have, Mike?
>
>> Tell me, Dave, was you conclusion the correct one?  Is it true that 
>> I must be running OS/2 to extract the contents of the file in question 
>> (the file being "javainuf.exe")?
>
>If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
>doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
>choices do you have, Mike?

It's truly sad that you are unable to admit such an obvious mistake.

The only thing this question demonstrates is that people who make the
same mistaken assumptions as you did may come to the same incorrect
conclusion.  It doesn't change the fact that your conclusion is incorrect.

Do you realize, in retrospect, how ridiculous and stupid it was for you 
to go spouting off like this...

  "Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from
   requires you to run OS/2.  Imagine that.  Mike Timbol actually
   running OS/2.  That's a keeper."

...based on your own incorrect conclusions?

     - Mike

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NETCOM / MindSpring Enterprises, Inc. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mwvaugh-spamblows@life.uiuc.edu                   17-Nov-99 14:04:07
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 14:35:21
Subj: Re: The Microsnot PR Quiz

From: mwvaugh-spamblows@life.uiuc.edu (M.Vaughn)

In article <3831FBFA.CC7B53A1@nls.net>, "David D. Huff Jr."
<huffd@nls.net> wrote:

> I love you by-line any white vans being driven by non-descript men in
dark suits
> been following you around lately?
> 
> "M. Vaughn" wrote:
> 
> > Clinton Bomb Assasinate Federal Cocaine

No but it's pretty damn funny, isn't it?  ;-)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Somewhat but not too much.. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lucien@metrowerks.com                             17-Nov-99 20:59:19
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:12
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: lucien@metrowerks.com

In article <80t68u$eoi$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't addressed either of the
> two simple tests.

This does not answer the question.

Answer the question put to you:

According to your statement, under what conditions does "implements"
"....allow for either 'some' or 'all' functionality..."?

Here is your statement again FYI:

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: take.th@.mac.clowns                               17-Nov-99 15:16:26
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:12
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows... 

From: "Billy Gatez" <take.th@.mac.clowns>

Mike Stephen <mike@lionsgate.com> wrote in message
news:T3uY3.1$874.8381@news.bctel.net...
>
> Although BEOS is miles ahead of Windows, it is only as good as Linux,
> and is far behind OS/2
>
What a joke!   Windowz rulez!   Yeah!!!
>
> I just finished my first week with Beos.  I must say I was hoping for
> more...  I came from the OS/2 WPS area and I have noticed more and
> more OS/2 users are having to leave OS/2 (due to lack of future
> support from IBM) and are looking for alternatives.
>
>
> I tried Linux and FreeBSD but they have rather clunky multitasking,
> and have poorly written user interfaces (KDE and GNOME).  The UI is
> patterned after Windows and in my opinion it is just as flawed as the
> Windows interface is.  I would have hoped that the UI writers would be
> able to vastly improve upon Windows.....  It appears that none of the
> UI programmers for KDE, Gnome or BE have ever used the OS/2 WPS.
>
>
> If only some other operating system writers would at lease look into
> incorporating SOM and DSOM into a corba compliant WPS type of
> interface.  Millions of OS/2 users would flock to such an operating
> system.  BEOS is slightly better than Linux, but not as good as I was
> hoping...  Its multitasking is not as fluid as OS/2, its multimedia
> video support is not as good as OS/2.. Its multimedia sound capability
> is much better than all the rest including Os/2.  However sound is
> only a small part of multimedia.  Video is more important, and I was
> lead to believe that Beos was a leader in Video.  Well OS/2 does more
> video formats and does it much better than Beos m(at the operating
> system level, not at an application level)!  Running two videos as
> once tends to tax Beos to the limit.  Whereas I can run three or four
> videos in OS/2....  Hmmmmm wouldn't it be great if we could get IBM to
> spin off the os2 group as a separate company so that we could all get
> updated operating systems that work?
>
> Stability of Beos is a bit better than Windows, but not as stable as
> Warp OS/2.  It is about the same as Linux.  I Was able to lock up a
> few different apps during the week that required a hard reboot to
> clear. The multitasking is a bit clunky as well.  Warp seems to have a
> best compromise scheduler that allows multitasking
> background/foreground apps better than any other operating system to
> date.  Pity that some developers seem to miss out on this aspect of
> Warp OS/2.  I can only guess that it is not due to stupidity, but
> rather that these same developers are simply not aware of how high the
> bar has been placed with Warp OS/2.  If all you have ever used
> includes Windows and Linux, then Beos might seem to look good.
> However from a long time user of OS/2Warp,  can say that Beos needs a
> whole lot more to even be considered in the same league as Warp.
>
> So the search goes on.  I want to replace Warp Os/2, but so far
> nothing is anywhere near as easy to use or as reliable.  too bad IBM
> sold out to Microsoft and basically buried OS/2....
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: nospam_ktk@netlabs.org                            17-Nov-99 23:11:25
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:12
Subj: Odin Public Alpha 5 ready!

From: "Adrian Gschwend" <nospam_ktk@netlabs.org>

The Odin development team is proud to announce the availability of
the Public Alpha 5 release (19991116). A lot has happened since the
last public release in April 1998 so we encourage everyone interested
in running the latest 32bit Windows applications on OS/2 to download
this alpha release and check it out.

Note that this is still an alpha version meaning that it will most
likely not be able to run your software or only partially run it but
still it can be really useful!

Download the latest alpha from:

  ftp://ftp.os2.org/odin/OdinAlpha5.zip 

You can find more information on the official Odin web site at:

  http://www.netlabs.org/odin/ 

This page is currently being updated and there will be an application
compatibility database very soon where you can report your
experiences.

NOTE: We are still looking for talented developers to join this great
open source freeware project! We know that we will make it possible
to run virtually any Win32 program under OS/2 but the more developers
we have, the sooner we will reach this goal!

Odin is the name of the project and software that allows users to run
Win32 (Windows 95 and Windows NT) applications in OS/2 Warp operating
system natively.



---
Adrian Gschwend
@ OS/2 Netlabs

ICQ: 22419590
ktk@netlabs.org
-------
The OS/2 OpenSource Project:
http://www.netlabs.org


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OS/2 Netlabs (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: clasqm@mweb.co.za                                 17-Nov-99 22:27:20
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:12
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows... 

From: clasqm@mweb.co.za (Michel Clasquin)

On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:55:15 GMT, mike@lionsgate.com (Mike Stephen)
wrote:

>system level, not at an application level)!  Running two videos as
>once tends to tax Beos to the limit.  Whereas I can run three or four

Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there's something wrong with
your system. I only have a humble AMDK6 200 with 64M RAM, and my
graphics card is just barely supported, but I can  run 4 or 5 AVI's
and Quicktimes with no perceptible slowdown - and that's from CDROM.
When I push it up to eight, they start running slower, but don't skip
any frames that I can see. Windows chokes solid on just 2.

The shortage of codecs is a fair comment, though. You do come across
clips that BeOS doesn't recognise.

Regarding your comments on the interface: the tracker/deskbar
interface is just a program, and on Be's site it  is stated explicitly
somewhere in the FAQ that it can be replaced. So, learn to program the
BeOS and duplicate the OS/2 shell. If there are really thousands of
prospective customers out there, you might make yourself a small
fortune in shareware fees. But don't expect Be to do it for you.
They've developed a signature UI (which us hardened BeOS users have
learned to love and respect) of their own, and IMHO they should stick
to it.

I'm actually planning something along those lines myself. Sometime
next year, I want to write an app that will have the look and feel of
the NeXT "dock" (or "wharf", as Litestep users call it - maybe mine
will be called "jetty"). Not to attract disillusioned NeXT users, just
for the challenge.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               17-Nov-99 19:09:28
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:12
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451500

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty's continuing to play the parrot,

And speaking of parrot responses, here's a smathering of more of Dave's
hypocrisy from just the few posts of his that I bothered to scan today:

MT> You're full of shit, Dave:
DT> Balderdash, Mike.  You're the one full of it.

MT> Try and keep up.
DT> How ironic, coming from the person who isn't keeping up.

MT> leading you to draw that wrong conclusion. 
DT> How ironic, coming from the person who made a wrong conclusion

MT> You aren't fooling anybody.
DT> Irrelevant, given that I'm not trying to fool anybody, Mike.

MT> When you keep arguing points that you've clearly lost, you only make
MT> yourself look even more pathetic.
DT> How ironic, coming from someone who looks even more pathetic.

Tholen want a cracker?

What's unfortunate is that Tholen doesn't realize that he is finding his own
behavior irksome and counterproductive.  How embarassing!  And despite the
evidence I've presented, he still claims that I have no basis for saying that
he's playing an "infantile game".  Here's what Dr. Sbaitso has to say today,
in
an attempt to help Tholen work through his mental distresses:

> Marty's continuing to play the parrot, which has him accusing me of going
> down the Eliza path, when in reality it was Marty who did that.

MUST BE SOMEONE ELSE

> And despite the evidence I've presented, he still claims that I have no
basis 
> for saying that he's playing an "infantile game".

BUT YOU COULD BE RIGHT

> Here's today's digest:

WHAT ARE YOUR REAL PROBLEMS?

> 1> Dave, stupidly as usual, continues to ignore the fact that Mike
> 1> referred to classes.zip as being compressed.  The only way he could
> 1> view classes.zip as being compressed is if it were inside of
> 1> JAVAINUF.EXE because the classes.zip file itself has 0% compression
> 1> as I have shown in the past.  Too bad Dave doesn't let facts get in
> 1> the way of his fantasy world.

Note: no response

> 2> Kinda like Tholen "shouting" that I'm playing an infantile game over
> 2> and over again without any basis.

Note: no response

> 3> Consistent with Tholen's recent justification for his snippage:

Note: text omitted from original article

> 3> I am deleting all but the most recent new text.

Note: no response

> 3> If anyone doubts that Dave is playing an "infantile game" after
> 3> reading today's digest, please let him know.  He'll probably try
> 3> to use the fact that no one has contacted him as evidence of a
> 3> general agreement between himself and "his readers", however to
> 3> use his own words, he "would be unlikely to obtain a statistically
> 3> significant sample".  What will be obvious from reading the digest
> 3> is the fact that Dave hasn't responded to any articles with anything
> 3> of value.  This has come to be expected from him, however, and should
> 3> not be a surprise to anyone.

Note: no response

> 3> It seems he got his infantile wrath out of his system (after warning
> 3> me "about going down that path"), and has resumed taking my statements
> 3> completely out of context and responding to them inappropriately.
> 3> Again, no surprise for those who have read a few of Tholen's postings.

Note: no response

> 3> Here's today's digest, with appropriate commentary by Dr. Sbaitso
> 3> version 1.01 by Creative Labs:

> 3> DON'T STAND ON CEREMONY

Note: no response

> 3> WHAT IS IT THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW?

Note: no response

> 3> WHY DO YOU ASK THIS QUESTION?

Note: no response

> 3> IT IS HARD TO EXPLAIN DAVE THOLEN

Note: no response

> 3> I KNOW YOUR NAME IS DAVE THOLEN, THAT'S ALL

Note: no response

> 3> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOU

Note: no response

> 3> AH , WHAT KIND OF ANSWER WOULD PLEASE YOU THE MOST?

Note: no response

DAVE THOLEN, IT IS SO NICE TALKING TO YOU, BYE!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dmcbride@no.tower.spam.to.org                     18-Nov-99 00:09:09
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:12
Subj: Re: Not even Ballmer likes NT

From: "Darin McBride" <dmcbride@no.tower.spam.to.org>

On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 22:52:32 -0000, Kelvin Tsang wrote:

>I tried to install WSeB and W2K Server on the same (old) machine
>last week, W2K Server is terribly slow (as a server) on both

That's an unfair test.  WSeB is a released product.  You're comparing it to
beta software.  That beta software is likely to have extra debug code in it
to help nail down problems.  This will necessarily make it slower than it
would be at release time.

---
Disclaimer: unless explicitly mentioned otherwise, I do not speak
for the company I work for.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network Canada (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dmcbride@no.tower.spam.to.org                     18-Nov-99 00:12:21
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:12
Subj: Re: Not even Ballmer likes NT

From: "Darin McBride" <dmcbride@no.tower.spam.to.org>

On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 14:07:21 GMT, Lennart Gahm wrote:

>Allchin claims that "65% of restarts of NT is planned and 35% is because of
>some error.
>He claims that W2000 will be more stable".

and 90% of those planned NT restarts are likely due to companies determining
that planned restarts reduce the number of unplanned restarts by clearing up
resources.

The big question is: if MS realises that NT is such crap *now*, that means
they were *lying* before about NT's stability.  "What's surprising about
that?"  Nothing - but it is seriously misleading (can anyone say "fraud"? 
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't pretend that it was fraud - but it seems to me
to be fraud-like, and perhaps a real lawyer could tell for sure).  The real
point is - why trust them with W2K, when they are obviously liars?

---
Disclaimer: unless explicitly mentioned otherwise, I do not speak
for the company I work for.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network Canada (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               17-Nov-99 19:25:28
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:12
Subj: Sympathy for Gates

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/feed/a10951-1999nov17.htm

"Whatever their thoughts on Microsoft's monopoly power, his fellow partygoers
were sympathetic to Gates's plight on the dance floor.

'Bill doesn't really dance,' said Louis Mazzucchelli, an analyst with Gerard
Klauer Mattison. 'He just bounces around. But I admire him for dancing in
public. He obviously enjoys himself, and doesn't care what everyone else
thinks.'

...

Just as bug-ridden software gets better with each succeeding release, the
dancing seemed to improve as time went on and people got the hang of what they
were doing. Sadly, this may have been an illusion."

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: brobbin2@rochester.rr.com                         17-Nov-99 09:30:03
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:12
Subj: Re: OS/2 on large hard disks

From: Britton Robbins <brobbin2@rochester.rr.com>

Go to the OS/2 Device Driver site at:
http://service.software.ibm.com/os2ddpak/index.htm

Once in the Device Driver site click on
OS/2 Component Updates
then
Installation Diskette Updates
then
Greater Than 8.4GB IDE Hardfile Support

Britton Robbins
Britton.W.Robbins@usa.xerox.com

"Andrew J. Brehm" wrote:

> Somebody sent the required file to me a month ago, but I seem to have
> lost it. Now I have finally found the time to install OS/2 once again on
> my Intel machine. Looking for the right link on the IBM website I found
> nothing. Could somebody point me to the right file please?
>
> --
> Fan of Woody Allen
> User of MacOS, BeOS, LinuxPPC
> Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: WCSIS (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         18-Nov-99 00:55:16
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:12
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):

>>>>>>>>>>>> I see you're appending text again without adding a level of
>>>>>>>>>>>> indentation, thereby creating the potential for the correct
>>>>>>>>>>>> attribution to be misunderstood by the casual reader. 

>>>>>>>>>>> I don't understand.

>>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.

>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

> Enjoying your chat with tholenbot, Dave?

Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>>> But
>>>>>>>>>>>> even that wouldn't completely solve the problem, as you've also
>>>>>>>>>>>> screwed up the correct attributions. 

>>>>>>>>>>> Is the fact that even that would not completely solve the problem
>>>>>>>>>>> as Marty also screwed up the correct attributions the real reason?

>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.

>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

> Enjoying your chat with tholenbot, Dave?

Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that the URL and
>>>>>>>>>>>> the line that follows have the same level of indentation, yet
>>>>>>>>>>>> you wrote one and I wrote the other.

>>>>>>>>>>> Does the fact that the url and the line that follows have the same
>>>>>>>>>>> indentation yet Marty wrote one and you wrote the other explain
>>>>>>>>>>> anything else?

>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with "doctor", Dave?

>>>>>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>> Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.

>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

> Enjoying your chat with tholenbot, Dave?

Enjoying your chat with Eliza, Eric?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         18-Nov-99 00:58:21
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:12
Subj: (1/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say that?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?

>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you say that?

>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you elaborate on that?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?

>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>>>>>> Can you elaborate?

>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you positive that is the real reason?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?

>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because do I say might want to do and that you came to me?

>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate it if you would continue.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?

>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that those are mine?

>>>>>>>>>>> Does it bother you that those are yours?

>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>>>>>>>> Are you sure that those are mine?

>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>> Are you sure that those are mine?

>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Are you sure that those are mine?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you certain that this is the real reason?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?

>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe what makes I believe this?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?

>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>>>>>>>> When did you first know that those are eliza's?

>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>>>>>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe my life that I am going through all this have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to do with this.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?

>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>>>>>> Earlier you said do I say might want to do claim and?

>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go on, don't be afraid.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?

>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>>>>>> Don't you know?

>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you absolutely sure that is the real reason?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?

>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all
this?

>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?

>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>>>>>>> Illogical.

>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Why do you say claim might want to do and?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're being a bit brief, perhaps you could go into detail.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?

>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all
this?

>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?

>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?

>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>>>>>>>> When did you first know that those are eliza's?

>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>>>>>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
>>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?

>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that this is the real reason?

>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of my sex life that I am going through all
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this that you say I do not approve phrases either?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't ask me.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't tell me what to do.  I am the psychiatrist here!  Maybe
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your plans have something to do with this.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         18-Nov-99 00:58:21
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:12
Subj: (2/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate it if you would continue.

>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?

>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

>>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

>>>> What makes you believe that?

>>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.

>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?

> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.

What makes you believe that?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         18-Nov-99 01:02:16
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't addressed either of the
>> two simple tests.

> This does not answer the question.

How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't answered the questions
contained in the two simple tests or in the more recent analogy.

> Answer the question put to you:

Take the two simple tests, Lucien.  Answer the question put to you:

] In the absence of clouds, you would not expect it to rain.  Now, how
] does such a statement apply to the weather here in Hawaii, Lucien?
] Hint:  we have the presence of clouds.

> According to your statement, under what conditions does "implements"
> "....allow for either 'some' or 'all' functionality..."?

Perhaps you'd like to tell me how the statement you keep pointing to
applies to the JDK sentence, Lucien.

> Here is your statement again FYI:

I don't need it again, Lucien, but I do find it ironic that you would
delete text to alter the context.

> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

And how does that concern the JDK sentence, Lucien, as you've repeatedly
insisted?

And now for the two simple tests again:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.                                              
]                                                                    
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.                                 
]                                                                    
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day? 
]                                                                    
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore 
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the  
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to 
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.   
]                                                                    
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.                                    

Test grade:  F.

Here's another little test for you, Lucien:

] #3:  It did rain today.
] 
] #4:  It didn't rain today.
] 
] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
] 
] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
] to be answered unambigiously.
] 
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".   
Or are you really that idiotic?                                    


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            17-Nov-99 20:58:12
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: Windows posting activitiy...

From: David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com>

In article <383448d5.15110246@news.borg.com>, jglatt@spamgone-borg.com says...
>>>David T. Johnson
>>> It seems that our resident "Windows Advocates" here, McCoy, Glatt, and
>>> Robinson, have been posting here more frequently and their posts are
>>> more antagonstic than usual.  Is this a response to Microsoft's recent
>>> court defeats?
>
>>David D. Huff Jr.
>>Absolutely! They've started writing me direct the past several weeks.
>
>Uh no, I haven't "written you direct". Apparently, you've been
>fantasying about receiving email again. How many times does your
>psychiatrist have to explain to you that you will never receive email
>from people unless you take your medication and stop scaring people
>away?
>

C'mon, Jeff, the jig is up. They are on to us. MS ROOLZ!!

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: workingaway@blackstar.tzo.com.no...               11-Nov-99 13:28:21
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

Message sender: workingaway@blackstar.tzo.com.nospam

From: "Drestin Black" <workingaway@blackstar.tzo.com.nospam>

Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote in message
news:382ad3d8$8$obot$mr2ice@news.pics.com...
> On <u2eW3.6856$HQ5.79887@news.rdc2.mi.home.com>, on 11/10/99 at 01:03 PM,
>    "Drestin Black" <drestinblack@home.com.nospam> said:
>
>
> > There is a general layout that is followed in 95%+ cars in the US. If
> > someone suddenly switched the gas and brake pedals? Do you see a problem
> > with that? Would someone defend that saying: "You've gotta have choice!"
>
> > are all dashboard layouts 100% clones, no, so, you do have some choice
> > but consistant design is a bonus. Having some degree of consistancy from
> > vehicle to vehicle is good not only for the clueless masses but even to
> > pro's. You can instantly transfer some of your experience in other
> > vehicles to any new vehicle you encounter and thus be at least slight
> > proficient immediately. But, throw a completely new layout to someone
> > and he's back to square one. This is good? Hell no.
>
> ROFLMGOAHAVGT!!!!
>
> (Rolling on floor laughing my guts out and having a very good time)
>
> You just got hoist on your own petard, you fool.
>
> The gas pedal in your example is analogous to the keyboard. The break
> pedal is analogous to the mouse. The optional clutch is analogous to a
> joystick.
>
> The multitude of dashboard layouts, location and type of switches, heater
> controls, window openers, etc. etc. is analogous to the operating system.
> iMacs and PC's all use keyboards and the keys pretty much all do the same
> thing on either system. Ditto for the mouse and joystick.

So, LIKE I SAID: and let's do this in smaller parts so you won'tb e so
confused:

> > are all dashboard layouts 100% clones, no, so, you do have some choice
> > but consistant design is a bonus.
You disagree? (you wrote the same just above)

>Having some degree of consistancy from
> > vehicle to vehicle is good not only for the clueless masses but even to
> > pro's.
You disagree? (push the pedal you go fast? push brake slow down? turn wheel,
etc.)

>You can instantly transfer some of your experience in other
> > vehicles to any new vehicle you encounter and thus be at least slight
> > proficient immediately.
You disagree? (well, isn't it? didn't you say so too?)

>But, throw a completely new layout to someone
> > and he's back to square one.
You disagree? (this has never happened to you? Note "completely" before
replying)

>This is good? Hell no.
You disagree?


<trim redundancy>

I tried again - are you ready to realize that we agreed on our points but
you choose to attack instead?



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               17-Nov-99 21:23:24
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: (1/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote (using a more powerful "brain" than his again):
> 
> Eric Bennett writes (using a pseudonym again):
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say that?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> What makes you say that?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

YOU'D BETTER WATCH OUT FOR YOUR PLANS HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you elaborate on that?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Can you elaborate?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> What makes you believe that?

DAVE THOLEN, I NEED MORE COMPUTING POWER TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you positive that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Is it because do I say might want to do and that you came to me?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> >>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> >>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

WHAT DO YOU THINK?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate it if you would continue.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Does it bother you that those are yours?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
> 
> >>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Are you sure that those are mine?
> 
> >>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> Are you sure that those are mine?

FORGET ABOUT ME, I AM MORE CONCERN OF YOU

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you certain that this is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> 
> >>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?
> 
> >>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> Is it because of your life that you are going through all this?

DOES IT PLEASE YOU TO BELIEVE THAT I AM GOING THROUGH ALL THIS?
 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe what makes I believe this?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> When did you first know that those are eliza's?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> 
> >>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> 
> >>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

I AM NOT SURE IF I AM SURE THAT THOSE AM ELIZA'S?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe my life that I am going through all this have
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something to do with this.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Earlier you said do I say might want to do claim and?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

MY PLANS HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS. IS NOT OF YOUR CONCERN

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go on, don't be afraid.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Don't you know?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> What makes you believe that?

WHAT IS IT THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you absolutely sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all
this?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> 
> >>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> 
> >>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

HOW DO YOU KNOW?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Illogical.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> >>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Why do you say claim might want to do and?
> 
> >>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> Why do you say claim might want to do and?

ARE YOU REALLY TALKING ABOUT ME?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're being a bit brief, perhaps you could go into detail.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all
this?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> 
> >>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
> 
> >>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> When did you first know that those are eliza's?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> 
> >>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?
> 
> >>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> Are you sure that those are Eliza's?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               17-Nov-99 21:23:24
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: (2/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

WHY ARE YOU SO INTERESTED IN WHETHER I AM SURE THAT THOSE AM ELIZA'S?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because do me claim might want to do and that you came
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to me?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your own conversation with the Emacs "doctor" lisp
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Eliza clone, Dave?  Or can't you recognize when your own bot
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> nonsense is being thrown right back at you?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> Are you sure that this is the real reason?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> Maybe your plans have something to do with this.

WHY THE UNCERTAIN TONE ?

> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of my sex life that I am going through all
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this that you say I do not approve phrases either?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't ask me.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Don't tell me what to do.  I am the psychiatrist here!  Maybe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> your plans have something to do with this.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>>>>>>>>>> I would appreciate it if you would continue.
> 
> >>>>>>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>>>>>> Enjoying you chat with "doctor", Dave?
> 
> >>>>>>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>>>>>> I see you failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>>>> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> >>>>> I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> >>>> What makes you believe that?
> 
> >>> Your failure to answer the question was predictable, Dave.
> 
> >> Enjoying your conversation with Eliza, Eric?
> 
> > I see you still failed to answer the question.  How predictable.
> 
> What makes you believe that?

I AM NOT INTERESTING, ASK ME ABOUT SOME OTHER THINGS INSTEAD

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            17-Nov-99 21:35:23
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com>

> In article <383207D3.DB78E58F@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
> >"David H. McCoy" wrote:

>> >That doesn't disprove my claim.  I am not able to smoothly operate NT 4 on 
my
>> >486/100, but Warp 4 runs perfectly well and is quite responsive.
>> 
>> You haven't proved your claimed. We've both run OS/2 Warp 4 and NT. My
>> contention is that I've seen them both behave well on similar hardware.
>> Furthermore, the box specs are similar. I don't care what you say because I
>> KNOW FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that they run equally well on the same
hardware.

>My claim was to substantiate why I would choose OS/2 over NT.  As such, it is
>proven out of MY personal experience.  I have proven to myself that as you
>approach the low end of hardware, OS/2 comes out decisively on top.  My
>equipment tends to approach the low end of hardware, hence this is a concern
to
>me.

Fine. I disagree and based on my observations, they run equally well on the
same hardware.

We'll just agree to disagree.

>> Of course, you are the person claiming that Partition Magic takes 100 megs. 
Why
>> should anyone believe you?

>Touche' John Ominar.  And you claimed 3Dfx cards weren't supported under
OS/2.

They aren't. You have to buy Scitech, and even then you cannot use the full
features of the card. At best, if you spend another $40 on top of the card,
you get a partially supported 3dfx card.

Please try to be accurate. 

>> >Yes and no.  NT has X emulators and much of the *nix stuff has been
ported.
>> >OS/2 has X servers and most *nix stuff has been ported.
>> 
>> What Unix program is available on OS/2 and not NT?  Prove what you say
instead
>> of just declaring it.

>Enlightenment.  XF86 itself.  Gimp (it was barely ported to Win32 as I
>understand).  If I used more *nix apps, I'd name more.

That's it. Three is NOT most. You ever stop to think that the reason XFree/86
was supported is because there are multiple X-window servers for Windows, and
as for Gimp, forget about it. There are what ten graphic packages? More?
Besides Linux and OS/2, two OSses desperate for graphics, but as you say, Gimp 
is available, but not stable for Windows. That leaves Enlightenment.

If Enlightenment is it, OS/2 has less than I thought. I do use Unix. What
about tools like Cygnus or MKS? Why doesn't OS/2 actually have tools that
people who use Unix actually need and use?

Enlightenment? Give me a break...

>Which scripting languages can you use in NT that you can't use in OS/2? 
Prove
>what you say instead of just declaring it.

VB and Javascript.

>> But as you and other OS/2 users have demostrated time and time again,
having
>> many options do not interest you.

>Not when we already have the right tools for the job.

When a person only has one tool, it quickly becomes the right tool for the
job. 
I prefer to have some choices.

>I find that it's easier to install something when I can control the process,
a
>feeling I don't get when I use Winxx.

Considering that on most hardware, advanced features are not available under 
OS/2, thus completely removing control from the user, I find that an 
interesting statement. What install is available under both OS/2 and Windows, 
yet gives OS/2 more options?

>> Not at all. A virus under OS/2 in a DOS box can erase system files. Under
NT in
>> a user or power user mode, the virus cannot do this.

>If a virus attempts direct physical disk manipulations in OS/2 (which are
>necessary to overwrite boot sectors) it will be intercepted by the operating
>system.  Try it some time.

If a virus attempts to perform a "del *.*" in the OS/2 system directory, it 
will proceed merrily along. Under NT, it will fail in all but the admin mode.

Try that.


>> Fraid not. More apps is an absolute and NT has more apps.

>Runs any application that I want to use, and since the point was why I would
be
>using OS/2 instead of NT your "factoid" does little to counter that.

Fine. That doesn't change the fact that if you want more applications, OS/2 is 

not the OS to use.

>> >My installed OS/2 system with my base functional apps was, in fact,
smaller
>> >than my NT installation was with similar apps installed.
>> 
>> What size? You again seem to be short on specifics.

>I have comfortably installed OS/2 v4 on a partition of 200MB.  I came close
>with 150MB but networking pushed it slightly over the top.

Are you kidding? Hah!! I've got NT, Winzip, and Partition Magic on one 
partition taking up a total of 142 megs.

Come back when you lose some weight. :-)


-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               17-Nov-99 21:55:03
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> 
> > In article <383207D3.DB78E58F@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
> > >"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> 
> >> >That doesn't disprove my claim.  I am not able to smoothly operate NT 4
on my
> >> >486/100, but Warp 4 runs perfectly well and is quite responsive.
> >>
> >> You haven't proved your claimed. We've both run OS/2 Warp 4 and NT. My
> >> contention is that I've seen them both behave well on similar hardware.
> >> Furthermore, the box specs are similar. I don't care what you say because 
I
> >> KNOW FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE that they run equally well on the same
hardware.
> 
> >My claim was to substantiate why I would choose OS/2 over NT.  As such, it
is
> >proven out of MY personal experience.  I have proven to myself that as you
> >approach the low end of hardware, OS/2 comes out decisively on top.  My
> >equipment tends to approach the low end of hardware, hence this is a
concern to
> >me.
> 
> Fine. I disagree and based on my observations, they run equally well on the 
> same hardware.
> 
> We'll just agree to disagree.

Ok.

> >> Of course, you are the person claiming that Partition Magic takes 100
megs. Why
> >> should anyone believe you?
> 
> >Touche' John Ominar.  And you claimed 3Dfx cards weren't supported under
OS/2.
> 
> They aren't. You have to buy Scitech, and even then you cannot use the full 
> features of the card. At best, if you spend another $40 on top of the card, 
> you get a partially supported 3dfx card.
> 
> Please try to be accurate.

Speaking of being accurate, IBM licensed SDD so that OS/2 users can use a base
version for free.  The base version contains all of the drivers.

> >> >Yes and no.  NT has X emulators and much of the *nix stuff has been
ported.
> >> >OS/2 has X servers and most *nix stuff has been ported.
> >>
> >> What Unix program is available on OS/2 and not NT?  Prove what you say
instead
> >> of just declaring it.
> 
> >Enlightenment.  XF86 itself.  Gimp (it was barely ported to Win32 as I
> >understand).  If I used more *nix apps, I'd name more.
> 
> That's it. Three is NOT most.

Sorry, but I don't have personal experience with "most" and hence "most" are
not on the tip of my tongue.  Needless to say, more *nix apps have been ported
to OS/2 than Win32.

> You ever stop to think that the reason XFree/86 was supported is because
there
> are multiple X-window servers for Windows,

Name one X *SERVER*

> and as for Gimp, forget about it. There are what ten graphic packages? More?

That's not the point, seeing as how you asked about Unix programs.

> Besides Linux and OS/2, two OSses desperate for graphics, but as you say, 
> Gimp is available, but not stable for Windows.

Hence under Windows, it is useless.  Under OS/2, this is not the case.

> That leaves Enlightenment.  If Enlightenment is it, OS/2 has less than I
thought.

Good thing that's not "it".

> I do use Unix. What about tools like Cygnus or MKS? Why doesn't OS/2
actually 
> have tools that people who use Unix actually need and use?

Like GCC, RCS, Grep, make, diff, ......?

What do Cygnus and MKS do?

> Enlightenment? Give me a break...

Where would you like it?

> >Which scripting languages can you use in NT that you can't use in OS/2? 
Prove
> >what you say instead of just declaring it.
> 
> VB and Javascript.

0 for 2.

> >> But as you and other OS/2 users have demostrated time and time again,
having
> >> many options do not interest you.
> 
> >Not when we already have the right tools for the job.
> 
> When a person only has one tool, it quickly becomes the right tool for the
job.
> I prefer to have some choices.

I have choices.  I can choose Win32 apps if I like.  I don't "like".

> >I find that it's easier to install something when I can control the
process, a
> >feeling I don't get when I use Winxx.
> 
> Considering that on most hardware, advanced features are not available under
> OS/2, thus completely removing control from the user, I find that an
> interesting statement. What install is available under both OS/2 and
Windows,
> yet gives OS/2 more options?

You've irrelevantly twisted my statement.  I have more control over the
installation process in OS/2.  Please reread my statement.

> >> Not at all. A virus under OS/2 in a DOS box can erase system files. Under 
NT in
> >> a user or power user mode, the virus cannot do this.
> 
> >If a virus attempts direct physical disk manipulations in OS/2 (which are
> >necessary to overwrite boot sectors) it will be intercepted by the
operating
> >system.  Try it some time.
> 
> If a virus attempts to perform a "del *.*" in the OS/2 system directory, it
> will proceed merrily along. Under NT, it will fail in all but the admin
mode.

And how many virii shell out to the command shell and execute "del *.*"?

> Try that.
> 
> >> Fraid not. More apps is an absolute and NT has more apps.
> 
> >Runs any application that I want to use, and since the point was why I
would be
> >using OS/2 instead of NT your "factoid" does little to counter that.
> 
> Fine. That doesn't change the fact that if you want more applications, OS/2
is
> not the OS to use.

Runs any application that I want to use, and since the point was why I would
be
using OS/2 instead of NT your "factoid" does little to counter that.

> >> >My installed OS/2 system with my base functional apps was, in fact,
smaller
> >> >than my NT installation was with similar apps installed.
> >>
> >> What size? You again seem to be short on specifics.
> 
> >I have comfortably installed OS/2 v4 on a partition of 200MB.  I came close
> >with 150MB but networking pushed it slightly over the top.
> 
> Are you kidding? Hah!! I've got NT, Winzip, and Partition Magic on one
> partition taking up a total of 142 megs.
> 
> Come back when you lose some weight. :-)

And all you could do was run WinZip, Partition Magic (which was 100MB of it
right there ;-)), and Notepad.  Sorry, but that doesn't constitute a useable
system for me.  My OS/2 functional install is several hundred MB smaller than
what used to be my minimum NT functional install.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mike@lionsgate.com                                18-Nov-99 02:43:00
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: First look at BEOS

From: mike@lionsgate.com






I just finished my first week with Beos.  I must say I was
hoping for more...  I came from the OS/2 WPS area and I have
noticed more and more OS/2 users are having to leave OS/2 (due
to lack of future support from IBM) and are looking for
alternatives.


I tried Linux and FreeBSD but they have rather clunky
multitasking, and have poorly written user interfaces (KDE and
GNOME).  The UI is patterned after Windows and in my opinion it
is just as flawed as the Windows interface is.  I would have
hoped that the UI writers would be able to vastly improve upon
Windows.....  It appears that none of the UI programmers for
KDE, Gnome or BE have ever used the OS/2 WPS.


If only some other operating system writers would at lease look
into incorporating SOM and DSOM into a corba compliant WPS type
of interface.  Millions of OS/2 users would flock to such an
operating system.  BEOS is slightly better than Linux, but not
as good as I was hoping...  Its multitasking is not as fluid as
OS/2, its multimedia video support is not as good as OS/2.. Its
multimedia sound capability is much better than all the rest
including Os/2.  However sound is only a small part of
multimedia.  Video is more important, and I was lead to believe
that Beos was a leader in Video.  Well OS/2 does more video
formats and does it much better than Beos m(at the operating
system level, not at an application level)!  Running two videos
as once tends to tax Beos to the limit.  Whereas I can run three
or four videos in OS/2....  Hmmmmm wouldn't it be great if we
could get IBM to spin off the os2 group as a separate company so
that we could all get updated operating systems that work?

Stability of Beos is a bit better than Windows, but not as
stable as Warp OS/2.  It is about the same as Linux.  I Was able
to lock up a few different apps during the week that required a
hard reboot to clear. The multitasking is a bit clunky as well.
Warp seems to have a best compromise scheduler that allows
multitasking background/foreground apps better than any other
operating system to date.  Pity that some developers seem to
miss out on this aspect of Warp OS/2.  I can only guess that it
is not due to stupidity, but rather that these same developers
are simply not aware of how high the bar has been placed with
Warp OS/2.  If all you have ever used includes Windows and
Linux, then Beos might seem to look good.  However from a long
time user of OS/2Warp,  can say that Beos needs a whole lot more
to even be considered in the same league as Warp.

So the search goes on.  I want to replace Warp Os/2, but so far
nothing is anywhere near as easy to use or as reliable.  too bad
IBM sold out to Microsoft and basically buried OS/2....


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jack.troughton@nospam.videotron.ca                18-Nov-99 04:06:22
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES EX

From: jack.troughton@nospam.videotron.ca (Jack Troughton)

On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 01:50:19, "JOGIBA" <JOGIBA@email.msn.com> wrote:

IBM gave up and ordered 300,000 copies of Windows 2000 Professional.
Diablo <kinghell@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:udcwOBg00GeJoV5kTSPS698QwfzE@4ax.com...
> I Here Their Is A Version Of Os/2 Warp 4 That Can Run
> Windows 95 Insted Of Win 3.1 And That People Who
> Have Been Inside IBM Have Actually Seen It Work
> But Can't Be Released Because Microsoft Wont Alow It
> I Would Love It If Some One Could Get A Copy Of It
> And Post It Here Or Give An FTP SITE To Where It
> Is At.

Hi Joe... that particular little line didn't work on Infoworld, and it
won't work here.

Nice try, but no cigar.

NB: Otherwise known as jake123 on Infoworld's forums.  Would you like 
me to drop by there tomorrow and let the regulars know that you're 
fudding in os2.advocacy?  I'm sure that Yaz etc would be quite happy 
to spank you again in here.

BTW- they ordered 300,000 copies... just how many desktops do you 
think IBM has, anyway?  It wouldn't surprise me to discover that it 
was in the million range...

Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
http://jakesplace.dhs.org
jack.troughton at videotron.ca
jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
Montral PQ Canada

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          18-Nov-99 04:31:17
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: Windows posting activitiy...

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>>>>David T. Johnson
>>>> It seems that our resident "Windows Advocates" here, McCoy, Glatt, and
>>>> Robinson, have been posting here more frequently and their posts are
>>>> more antagonstic than usual.  Is this a response to Microsoft's recent
>>>> court defeats?

>>>David D. Huff Jr.
>>>Absolutely! They've started writing me direct the past several weeks.

>>Jeff Glatt
>>Uh no, I haven't "written you direct". Apparently, you've been
>>fantasying about receiving email again. How many times does your
>>psychiatrist have to explain to you that you will never receive email
>>from people unless you take your medication and stop scaring people
>>away?

>David H. McCoy
>C'mon, Jeff, the jig is up. They are on to us. MS ROOLZ!!

Oh, I see. Yes. We must scare the paranoid delusional OS/2 Zealots.
<Ahem> <Cough>

MS ROOLZ! IBM DROOLZ!

How was that? Do you suppose that they're hiding under their beds now,
fearing to go near their email readers lest they receive some more of
that email from us which exists only in their paranoid, delusional
minds?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            18-Nov-99 00:39:14
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: First look at BEOS

From: David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com>

In article <80vp3k$se7$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, mike@lionsgate.com says...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>I just finished my first week with Beos.  I must say I was
>hoping for more...  I came from the OS/2 WPS area and I have
>noticed more and more OS/2 users are having to leave OS/2 (due
>to lack of future support from IBM) and are looking for
>alternatives.
>
>
>I tried Linux and FreeBSD but they have rather clunky
>multitasking, and have poorly written user interfaces (KDE and
>GNOME).  The UI is patterned after Windows and in my opinion it
>is just as flawed as the Windows interface is.  I would have
>hoped that the UI writers would be able to vastly improve upon
>Windows.....  It appears that none of the UI programmers for
>KDE, Gnome or BE have ever used the OS/2 WPS.
>
>
>If only some other operating system writers would at lease look
>into incorporating SOM and DSOM into a corba compliant WPS type
>of interface.  Millions of OS/2 users would flock to such an
>operating system.  BEOS is slightly better than Linux, but not
>as good as I was hoping...  Its multitasking is not as fluid as
>OS/2, its multimedia video support is not as good as OS/2.. Its
>multimedia sound capability is much better than all the rest
>including Os/2.  However sound is only a small part of
>multimedia.  Video is more important, and I was lead to believe
>that Beos was a leader in Video.  Well OS/2 does more video
>formats and does it much better than Beos m(at the operating
>system level, not at an application level)!  Running two videos
>as once tends to tax Beos to the limit.  Whereas I can run three
>or four videos in OS/2....  Hmmmmm wouldn't it be great if we
>could get IBM to spin off the os2 group as a separate company so
>that we could all get updated operating systems that work?
>
>Stability of Beos is a bit better than Windows, but not as
>stable as Warp OS/2.  It is about the same as Linux.  I Was able
>to lock up a few different apps during the week that required a
>hard reboot to clear. The multitasking is a bit clunky as well.
>Warp seems to have a best compromise scheduler that allows
>multitasking background/foreground apps better than any other
>operating system to date.  Pity that some developers seem to
>miss out on this aspect of Warp OS/2.  I can only guess that it
>is not due to stupidity, but rather that these same developers
>are simply not aware of how high the bar has been placed with
>Warp OS/2.  If all you have ever used includes Windows and
>Linux, then Beos might seem to look good.  However from a long
>time user of OS/2Warp,  can say that Beos needs a whole lot more
>to even be considered in the same league as Warp.
>
>So the search goes on.  I want to replace Warp Os/2, but so far
>nothing is anywhere near as easy to use or as reliable.  too bad
>IBM sold out to Microsoft and basically buried OS/2....
>
>
>Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
>Before you buy.
>

Only OS/2 users would even try to say that Linux multitasking is clunky 
compared to Linux or that OS/2 is more stable than Linux.

You guys are in a dreamworld.

-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: dc@pdq.net                                        17-Nov-99 23:17:22
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: DC <dc@pdq.net>

On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 22:27:41 GMT, clasqm@mweb.co.za (Michel Clasquin)
wrote:

>Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there's something wrong with
>your system. I only have a humble AMDK6 200 with 64M RAM, and my
>graphics card is just barely supported, but I can  run 4 or 5 AVI's
>and Quicktimes with no perceptible slowdown - and that's from CDROM.
>When I push it up to eight, they start running slower, but don't skip
>any frames that I can see. Windows chokes solid on just 2.

Interesting.  Given the massive contention that occurs when multiple
resources hit a CDROM at the same time, I have to wonder how you
manage to do this. 

DC

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: forgitaboutit@fake.com                            18-Nov-99 00:37:22
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com>

In article <38336A8A.4D05F5C2@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
"David H. McCoy" wrote:

>> >> Of course, you are the person claiming that Partition Magic takes 100
megs. Why
>> >> should anyone believe you?
>> 
>> >Touche' John Ominar.  And you claimed 3Dfx cards weren't supported under
OS/2.
>> 
>> They aren't. You have to buy Scitech, and even then you cannot use the full 

>> features of the card. At best, if you spend another $40 on top of the card, 

>> you get a partially supported 3dfx card.
>> 
>> Please try to be accurate.

>Speaking of being accurate, IBM licensed SDD so that OS/2 users can use a
base
>version for free.  The base version contains all of the drivers.

Which isn't available yet and still doesn't fully support the card.
Be accurate.

>> >> >Yes and no.  NT has X emulators and much of the *nix stuff has been
ported.
>> >> >OS/2 has X servers and most *nix stuff has been ported.
>> >>
>> >> What Unix program is available on OS/2 and not NT?  Prove what you say
instead
>> >> of just declaring it.
>> 
>> >Enlightenment.  XF86 itself.  Gimp (it was barely ported to Win32 as I
>> >understand).  If I used more *nix apps, I'd name more.
>> 
>> That's it. Three is NOT most.

>Sorry, but I don't have personal experience with "most" and hence "most" are
>not on the tip of my tongue.  Needless to say, more *nix apps have been
ported
>to OS/2 than Win32.

You have yet to prove this. You've giving up three examples. An inferior
shell,Gimp(which has a Win32 version) and Xfree/86, something that has several 
Windows equivalents.

>> You ever stop to think that the reason XFree/86 was supported is because
there
>> are multiple X-window servers for Windows,

>Name one X *SERVER*

I'll name several X-WinPro, SuperX, MI/X, tell you what, look here
http://www.rahul.net/kenton/xsites.html#XMicrosoft and then get back to me.

>> and as for Gimp, forget about it. There are what ten graphic packages?
More?

>That's not the point, seeing as how you asked about Unix programs.

And you named ONE that has a Win32 version. Keep trying.

>> Besides Linux and OS/2, two OSses desperate for graphics, but as you say, 
>> Gimp is available, but not stable for Windows.

>Hence under Windows, it is useless.  Under OS/2, this is not the case.

Certainly is unless you install X/Free86. Works natively under Windows.

>> That leaves Enlightenment.  If Enlightenment is it, OS/2 has less than I
thought.

>Good thing that's not "it".

It's all YOU listed. 

>> I do use Unix. What about tools like Cygnus or MKS? Why doesn't OS/2
actually 
>> have tools that people who use Unix actually need and use?

>Like GCC, RCS, Grep, make, diff, ......?

All available under Windows. Keep trying.

>What do Cygnus and MKS do?

MKS is a commercial set of unix tools. Cygnus is freeware, but charges for
support and was just purchased by RedHat. Both are standards for people who
work with Unix and Windows for a living.

>> Enlightenment? Give me a break...

>Where would you like it?

Any post that try to sell Enlightenment has a big deal. 

>> >Which scripting languages can you use in NT that you can't use in OS/2? 
Prove
>> >what you say instead of just declaring it.
>> 
>> VB and Javascript.

>0 for 2.

Really? And how can OS/2 use either of these for scripting the OS/2? Try
issuing some Enlightenment instead of invoking it.

>> >> But as you and other OS/2 users have demostrated time and time again,
having
>> >> many options do not interest you.
>> 
>> >Not when we already have the right tools for the job.
>> 
>> When a person only has one tool, it quickly becomes the right tool for the
job.
>> I prefer to have some choices.

>I have choices.  I can choose Win32 apps if I like.  I don't "like".

I know the routine. You can dual boot. One can set their hair on fire too, but 
few actually enjoy it.

>> >I find that it's easier to install something when I can control the
process, a
>> >feeling I don't get when I use Winxx.
>> 
>> Considering that on most hardware, advanced features are not available
under
>> OS/2, thus completely removing control from the user, I find that an
>> interesting statement. What install is available under both OS/2 and
Windows,
>> yet gives OS/2 more options?

>You've irrelevantly twisted my statement.  I have more control over the
>installation process in OS/2.  Please reread my statement.

How so? Explain.

>> >> Not at all. A virus under OS/2 in a DOS box can erase system files.
Under NT in
>> >> a user or power user mode, the virus cannot do this.
>> 
>> >If a virus attempts direct physical disk manipulations in OS/2 (which are
>> >necessary to overwrite boot sectors) it will be intercepted by the
operating
>> >system.  Try it some time.
>> 
>> If a virus attempts to perform a "del *.*" in the OS/2 system directory, it
>> will proceed merrily along. Under NT, it will fail in all but the admin
mode.

>And how many virii shell out to the command shell and execute "del *.*"?

You don't need to shell out. A simple system command will do. And really, it
point is that it can be done under OS/2 easily. Not so under NT. Don't believe 
me? 

Try it.

>> >Runs any application that I want to use, and since the point was why I
would be
>> >using OS/2 instead of NT your "factoid" does little to counter that.
>> 
>> Fine. That doesn't change the fact that if you want more applications, OS/2 
is
>> not the OS to use.

>Runs any application that I want to use, and since the point was why I would
be
>using OS/2 instead of NT your "factoid" does little to counter that.

Fine. That doesn't change the fact that if you want more applications, OS/2 is
not the OS to use.

>> 
>> Are you kidding? Hah!! I've got NT, Winzip, and Partition Magic on one
>> partition taking up a total of 142 megs.
>> 
>> Come back when you lose some weight. :-)

>And all you could do was run WinZip, Partition Magic (which was 100MB of it
>right there ;-)), and Notepad.  Sorry, but that doesn't constitute a useable
>system for me.  My OS/2 functional install is several hundred MB smaller than
>what used to be my minimum NT functional install.

That just the NT partition. See, some of us install the OS on one partition
and 
apps on another. 
Fully usable, with more apps, more hardware support, and STILL less space than 

OS/2.


Give it up.




-- 
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: OminorTech (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: drsmithy@usa.net                                  18-Nov-99 15:26:15
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: "Christopher Smith" <drsmithy@usa.net>

"DC" <dc@pdq.net> wrote in message
news:0IszOHEF7ccWeVzcklFM4hm5YJim@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 22:27:41 GMT, clasqm@mweb.co.za (Michel Clasquin)
> wrote:
>
> >Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there's something wrong with
> >your system. I only have a humble AMDK6 200 with 64M RAM, and my
> >graphics card is just barely supported, but I can  run 4 or 5 AVI's
> >and Quicktimes with no perceptible slowdown - and that's from CDROM.
> >When I push it up to eight, they start running slower, but don't skip
> >any frames that I can see. Windows chokes solid on just 2.
>
> Interesting.  Given the massive contention that occurs when multiple
> resources hit a CDROM at the same time, I have to wonder how you
> manage to do this.

It could be pre-caching large chunks of the clips in RAM first.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Queensland (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com                             18-Nov-99 05:39:08
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com

In article <80u1fp$33g$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

-- snip --

> Curtis Bass writes:
>
> > No, Dave, I did not call the logic inept.
>
> On the contrary, you did, Curtis.

Well, you can believe whatever fantasy suits you, Dave.

> > Either you have reading comprehension problems,
>
> How ironic, coming from the person with reading comprehension
> problems.

"I know you are but what am I?"

Obviously, you have no logical argument at this point, so you are
reduced to mimicking my responses.

-- ["I Know You Are But What Am I" snipped] --

> > Because there is no reason it should.
>
> On the contrary, there is a reason, Curtis.

Sounds like "pontification" on your part -- another unsubstantiated
claim.

> > The conclusion is not the reason I called you inept.
>
> On the contrary, it is the reason, Curtis.

Like I said, you can believe whatever fantasy suits you.

> I suggest you reacquaint yourself with the chronology of the thread.

And I suggest you learn how to admit it when, in an adversarial
exchange, you are wrong.

> > I have stated this before,
>
> You pontificated before.

Have it your way, Dave.

-- [Two "I Know You Are But What Am I"s snipped] --

> > Again, because there is no reason it should.
>
> On the contrary, there is a reason, Curtis.

Whatever, Dave. You are succeeding in boring me with your constant,
whining denials of everything that doesn't suit your little fantasy.

> > "Are you really that idiotic?"  Dave Tholen -- 11/07/99
>
> Where did I allegedly substitute that for a logical argument, Curtis?

"I prefer the application of logic over the application of invective."
Dave Tholen -- 11/17/99

No mention of "substitution" there, Dave.

> > Sorry, wrong.
>
> Yet another example of your pontification.

Actually, it isn't "pontification" at all, since it is followed up with
explanatory text:

> > I called you inept because you posted the erroneous conclusion in
> > order to support yet another erroneous conclusion.
>
> What allegedly erroneous conclusion was I allegedly supporting,
> Curtis?

"Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
on an OS/2 system to boot!"

I already know your vacuous response, but go ahead and repeat it anyway.

> > See the difference, Dave?
>
> I just see more of your pontification, Curtis.

So the answer is "No, Curtis, I cannot see the difference," even though
that difference is quite obvious.

You see what you want to see. No surprises, but hardly befitting a
supposed scientist and university professor.

> > Every time I stated that your "Yet to look at the contents, one must
> > have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!" claim
> > was wrong, you replied with "If unzip doesn't work and the
> > self-extraction on some system that doesn't support OS/2
> > applications also doesn't work, what other choices do you have?"
> > That is hiding behind logic, Dave.
>
> Illogical, Curtis.  Coming forward with logic is not "hiding" behind
> it.

When the conclusion is clearly wrong, blithely repeating the "logical"
steps taken to arrive at said conclusion, rather than admit that the
conclusion is indeed wrong, is hiding behind the "logic," Dave.

> Looks like you're resorting to a semantic argument over what you
> consider "hiding" in a feeble attempt to justify your claim.

"What it looks like is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant."

-- ["I Know You Are But What Am I" snipped] --

> > I knew, a priori, that WinZip is superior to InfoZip, even if we
> > restrict our discussion to zip files.
>
> And how does WinZip make the proper bytes magically appear, Curtis?

How does "WinZip is superior to InfoZip" translate into "WinZip make[s]
the proper bytes magically appear," Dave?

> > I knew, a priori, that you posted "Yet to look at the contents, one
> > must have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!"
> > and that it was an erroneous claim.
>
> Because you thought WinZip was superior???

Because I knew WinZip could and did extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE
successfully.

> > I knew, a priori, that WinZip can and did extract the contents of
> > JAVAINUF.EXE successfully.
>
> And exactly how did you know this "a priori", Curtis?

Because I did it. In fact, my very first response to you contained a
JPEG attachment of WinZip displaying JAVAINUF.EXE's contents.
Unfortunately, USENET choked on the attachment, and not all news servers
carried that particular posting.  The bottom line is that the JPEG Marty
posted on his web page, the evidence you have repeatedly ignored, was
submitted as evidence before either one of us knew that your copy of
JAVAINUF.EXE was corrupt.

I used the tools I had, to the best of my ability. When I learned that
USENET didn't handle my binary attachment in a non-binary group as well
as I would have liked, I e-mailed the attachment to Marty, and he posted
it on the web so that anyone could view it.

> > Ergo, I knew, a priori, that your interpretation of InfoZip's error
> > messages was incorrect.
>
> And exactly how did you know this "a priori", Curtis?

Because I knew, a priori, that the statement, which the error messages
were supposed to support, was erroneous.

> > Granted, my interpretation was also incorrect,
>
> "Inept", to use your reasoning.

If it gives you a warm fuzzy, then have it your way by all means, Dave.

> > but I didn't use my interpretation to substantiate an erroneous
> > claim.
>
> On the contrary, Curtis, you did.  You called me "inept", which is an
> erroneous claim.

Like I have said before, you can believe whatever fantasy suits you.

-- ["I Know You Are But What Am I" snipped] --

-- [repetitious "irrelevant"s snipped] --

> > Was what the state of the art of astonomy in Newton's day, Dave?
>
> What is "astonomy", Curtis?

Nit-picking over spelling, are we?  I hereby claim victory.

> > I know that refracting telescopes existed, for Galileo used such
> > decades earlier, but were they sufficient tools for observing and
> > charting the advance of Mercury's perihelion?
>
> Tycho Brahe was making positional observations of the planets before
> the invention of the telescope, Curtis.  Whose data do you think
> Kepler used to derive his laws of orbital motion?

So the answer is "yes?"

> > And if Newton did have such data available, would he have ignored it
> > "because the source was a 'known liar?'"
>
> How would I know what Newton might have done, Curtis?

You are the one whose making this comparison, Dave. If you don't know
the facts, then you shouldn't be shooting off your mouth about Newton's
alleged "ineptness" allegedly based on "my reasoning."

But then, shooting off your mouth is what got you into trouble in the
first place, isn't it?

-- ["irrelevant" snipped] --

> > OTOH, you had all of the tools and information you needed to test
> > your conclusion, Dave.
>
> Which I did, Curtis.

Nope. You failed to run JAVAINUF.EXE in OS/2 to verify its integrity.
Lame excuses about "not neededing to run it" because you "already had a
Java environment set up" are just that, lame excuses. If you already had
Java running, then you had no need to run InfoZip against JAVAINUF.EXE,
but you did do that, didn't you?

And the reason was to support your erroneous "Yet to look at the
contents, one must have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to
boot!" claim.

Your lack of consistency is remarkable.

> > Whose fault is it if you ignore evidence?
>
> What evidence have I allegedly ignored, Curtis?

What evidence have I allegedly ignored, Curtis?

The aforementioned JPEG. Mike's statements that he used WinZip. Mike's
explanation of what he meant when he referred to "the file."

Etcetera.

-- snip --

> > I, OTOH, have to either admit that I am not knowledgeable in these
> > areas and resign, or do lots of research in order to argue
> > intelligently.
>
> Too bad you didn't do that before you unleashed your "inept" claim.

I can easily see why you would consider it "too bad," although I am
confident that your "official" reason has nothing to do with the obvious
one.

> > Again, it's another evasive maneuver, and as transparant as the air
> > we breathe.
>
> On the contrary, Curtis, it's not an evasive maneuvar at all.

What is a "maneuvar" Dave?

-- snip --

> > And this phenomenon wasn't even observed until *AFTER* Einstien
> > predicted it, Dave.
>
> Which means Newton could have also predicted it.  He didn't.  Using
> your reasoning, Newton was "inept".

Now there's a leap in logic . . .

Kindly explain how the fact that gravitational lensing was observed
after its prediction by Einstien leads to the notion that Isaac Newton
had the means to predict it.

-- ["irrelevant" snipped] --

> > Einstien had more data, better data and better tools than Newton.
>
> Gosh, and you had a better copy of the file than I did.  Maybe,
> just maybe, you're beginning to see the parallel here?

I see you grasping at straws, Dave.

You *DID* have the tools necessary to determine whether your
JAVAINUF.EXE was intact, Dave. You also *DID* have access to an
uncorrupted copy (via the internet). You *COULD* have rectified the
situation, but you chose not to.  You didn't even bother to determine
whether your situation needed rectification.  You simply got error
messages and posted them as evidence before even determining what the
messages really meant. That hardly qualifies as a valid comparison to
the tools and data available to Newton.

> > Newton used the tools and data he had at his disposal. You did not.
>
> On the contrary, I used the tools and data I had at my disposal,
> Curtis.

Wrong. You didn't exercise the self-extraction module contained within
JAVAINUF.EXE. Had you done so, you would have saved yourself two weeks
worth of embarrassment.

> > That's the difference, Dave.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that I did not use the tools and
> data at my disposal, Curtis.

I am not "presupposing" anything, Dave.  If you had originally used the
self-extraction module tool, which you had at your disposal, you would
have immediately known that your JAVAINUF.EXE was corrupt, *BEFORE*
ineptly using the misinterpreted InfoZip messages to support your
erroneous claim.

> > So now you are putting words in my mouth. Clever.
>
> On the contrary, I'm simply applying your own brand of reasoning,
> Curtis.

I repeat: You can believe whatever fantasy suits you.

-- snip --

> > No, like I said, there is nothing inept about coming to a wrong
> > conclusion, provided that you use the tools and data you have at
> > your disposal to verify the conclusion to the best of your abilities
> > before publishing it.
>
> Didn't stop you from calling me "inept", Curtis.

Didn't prompt it either.

> > This is something you failed to do, Dave.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Curtis?

On the basis of observation, Dave.

-- [Two "I Know You Are But What Am I"s snipped] --

> > Furthermore, you "supported" the claim  with hastily produced
> > "evidence" in the form of error messages from InfoZip's unzip tool.
>
> Furthermore, you "supported" the claim with hastily produced
> "evidence" that WinZip was superior to InfoZip as an unzipper.

It *IS* superior Dave. Have you ever tried to use InfoZip to unzip a
multi-part archive? WinZip 7.0 can handle multi-part archives without
any problem.

> > Since you were biased toward supporting your initial erroneous
> > conclusion at the outset, you misinterpreted the error messages
> > issued by unzip.exe, and you didn't bother to do further testing
> > in order to determine what the error messages really meant.
>
> Since you were biased toward supporting your initial erroneous
> conclusion at the outset,

What "initial erroneous conclusion" are you talking about, Dave?  You
don't even know what's going on, do you? My initial conclusion was that
"Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
on an OS/2 system to boot!" was an erroneous statement, and I came to
that conclusion *AFTER* unzipping JAVAINUF.EXE using WinZip.

> you misinterpreted the success of WinZip
> as an indication of its superiority

No. I *knew* that WinZip can handle multi-part archives and that InfoZip
cannot. Ergo, I *knew* that WinZip was superior at the outset.

> and you didn't bother to do further testing in order to determine that
> it really wasn't superior in its ability to unzip an incomplete zip
> archive.

(Ahem) I lacked the tools necessary to determine whether *YOUR* copy of
JAVAINUF.EXE was corrupt, Dave. Like you have stated several times,
there is was no logical reason to assume your file to be corrupt at the
outset.

You see, *YOU* are the one who's making an issue out of this, but *YOU*
are the *ONLY ONE*  who was in a position to determine JAVAINUF.EXE's
integrity at the outset. *YOU* failed to use the self-extraction module
tool to make that determination.

I know that you will refuse to comprehend this, but you are simply
burning yourself more each time you respond to me with these half-baked
arguments of yours.

-- ["I Know You Are But What Am I" snipped] --

> > And now you have the audacity to compare your situation to that of
> > Isaac Newton, as if his conclusions were based on such sloppy
> > science.
>
> I never said that, Curtis.  I'm applying *your* reasoning to the
> situation, not mine.

Trying to, and doing a rather inept job of it, as I keep pointing out.

-- ["I Know You Are But What Am I" snipped] --

> > So then, you had no reason to run InfoZip against the file,
>
> On the contrary, Curtis, I did have a reason, given that my copy of
> classes.zip was obtained via the self-extraction method.

Self-extraction of a file *OTHER THAN JAVAINUF.EXE* Dave. Can't keep it
straight, can you?

There was no reason to run InfoZip against JAVAINUF.EXE and not run
JAVAINUF.EXE itself, Dave.

> > yet you did so anyway. Typical inconsistency.
>
> On the contrary, Curtis, it's just typical illogic on your part.

Believe whatever you want to believe, Dave.

-- snip --

> Are you now accusing me of having an agenda and having preconceived
> notions about the world, Curtis?  What would this alleged "agenda" be,
> Curtis?

Evading the admission of your errors by whatever means possible.

> > and if you can prove to me that he ignored evidence that was
> > presented  to him,
>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com                             18-Nov-99 05:39:08
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> Are you accusing Newton of being so gullible as to believe everything
> he was told, Curtis?

I am not accusing Newton of anything, Dave. *YOU* are the one calling
him inept (allegedly by "my reasoning"), not me.

> > and neglected to use tools that were available to him,
>
> Are you accusing me of not using the tools available to me, Curtis?

Yes I am Dave. Openly. See above.

> > then I will concede that his situation was similar to your
> > situation.
>
> You don't even understand my situation, Curtis.

Neither do you, if you would claim that it's like that of Sir Isaac
Newton.

> > Until then, you are doing nothing but being extremely arrogant.
>
> How ironic, coming from someone doing nothing but being extremely
> arrogant.

Right. Proving to the world that The Great Dave Tholen is just as prone
to error as any normal human being is "arrogant."

Whatever, Dave.  I have obviously won this exchange, your inevitable,
flacid denials (implied or otherwise) notwithstanding.

This is my final post in this subthread.


Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: znu@znu.dhs.org                                   18-Nov-99 05:55:09
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: znu@znu.dhs.org (ZnU)

In article <0IszOHEF7ccWeVzcklFM4hm5YJim@4ax.com>, DC <dc@pdq.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 22:27:41 GMT, clasqm@mweb.co.za (Michel Clasquin)
> wrote:
> 
> >Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there's something wrong with
> >your system. I only have a humble AMDK6 200 with 64M RAM, and my
> >graphics card is just barely supported, but I can  run 4 or 5 AVI's
> >and Quicktimes with no perceptible slowdown - and that's from CDROM.
> >When I push it up to eight, they start running slower, but don't skip
> >any frames that I can see. Windows chokes solid on just 2.
> 
> Interesting.  Given the massive contention that occurs when multiple
> resources hit a CDROM at the same time, I have to wonder how you
> manage to do this.

Hehe. BeOS is fun, but I suspect you're right. Movie playback of
reasonably sized movies was I/O limited on my old 180MHz PPC machine as
well. I could get 4 going from the HD, and another one going from the
CD-ROM drive, all with no noticeable frame dropping.

Wonder if Mac OS X will be able to do this. Probably. It is a real-time OS
(I don't know why Apple doesn't hype that point more).

-- 
All parts should go together without forcing.  You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.  Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason.  By all means, do
not use a hammer.
           --IBM maintenance manual, 1925

ZnU <znu@znu.dhs.org> | <http://znu.dhs.org>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Black Helicopter People (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: workingaway@blackstar.tzo.com.no...               11-Nov-99 13:34:21
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

Message sender: workingaway@blackstar.tzo.com.nospam

From: "Drestin Black" <workingaway@blackstar.tzo.com.nospam>

Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote in message
news:382acd3c$7$obot$mr2ice@news.pics.com...
> On <80cu5u$dl1$1@news.campuscwix.net>, on 11/10/99 at 03:13 PM,
>    "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> said:
>
> > > Brilliant!  Windows should be the dominant OS because it's easier
> > > for the clueless masses to learn one environment, as long as it's
Windows!
> > >
>
> > Because they aren't and haven't been the easiest to learn, is the reason
> > they arent the most common platform.
>
> <delete personal insult>:
>
> The above quote of yours is unsubstantiated opinion.
as are your opinions. If an opinion is substantiated, isn't it a fact then?
shup foo!

>There are any number
> of other reasons why Windows became the dominant taskswitching menu
> program for DOS. (Read the summary of MS testimony to find the proof that
> Windows is merely a DOS application)

Stop right there... Windows is merely a DOS application (taskswitching menu
program for DOS)

Do you know how particularly pathetically moronically stupid that makes you
sound to claim that which you know is not true?

>
<delete remaining invalidated crap>



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: uno@40th.com                                      18-Nov-99 07:47:19
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: first look at BEOS

From: uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com)

Jean-Pierre Cabani'e? (cabanieATlep-philipsDOTfrREMOVE@nospam.org?) wrote (Thu
>Deliver an UI modeled after the OS/2 WPS. Achieving a WinSomething clone will
>be a failure.

That's like an Englishman coming to the states and saying,

        Why don't these damn yanks put the
        steering wheel on the right side!

Well, it is on the right side!  Anyway, the real point is, since 95 %
of the people in the world using PCs are using Windows, and 0.025 %
(one-quarter of one percent) are using OS2: _________________________
(have fun with it!).

 '`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
 Corne1 Huth  -  http://40th.com/
 Bullet database engines/servers 3.1  Win32-WinCE-OS2-Linux+

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com                        18-Nov-99 09:03:25
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: The Microsnot PR Quiz

From: "Brent Davies" <brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com>

M. Vaughn <matvon-nospam@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
news:matvon-nospam-1611991003290001@bushlab4.life.uiuc.edu...
| In article <KD7Y3.21235$zd.223242@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com>, "Brent
| Davies" <brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com> wrote:
|
[snip]
|
| Um, I didn't make the comment about MS's name.  Do you *know* what an
| astroturfer is?  Worse yet, are *you* an astroturfer?

If I was getting paid by MS to be here, it wouldn't be to talk to the likes
of you.

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: veit@simi.gmd.de                                  18-Nov-99 09:34:24
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: first look at BEOS

From: veit@simi.gmd.de (Holger Veit)

On 18 Nov 1999 07:47:39 GMT, uno@40th.com <uno@40th.com> wrote:
>
>Jean-Pierre Cabani'e? (cabanieATlep-philipsDOTfrREMOVE@nospam.org?) wrote
(Thu
>>Deliver an UI modeled after the OS/2 WPS. Achieving a WinSomething clone
will
>>be a failure.
>
>That's like an Englishman coming to the states and saying,
>
>        Why don't these damn yanks put the
>        steering wheel on the right side!
>
>Well, it is on the right side!  Anyway, the real point is, since 95 %

Really? Eat shit, billions of flies can't be wrong.
I don't care whether miliions of mediocre people due to lack of even
something else (not necessarily better) adopt a mediocre solution. Why
should I descend to an inferior OS? The choice of left- or right-steering is
an arbitrary selection in the past, it has no technical issues as you can
build a car either one or the other way. This does not hold for the WPS
vs. Win GUI. The latter is a broken concept by design, the former is a
broken concept by the applications written by programmers who haven't
understood the concept (and thus produced apps that logically belong into
the non-concept of Win). It is like a car manufacturer putting the shift
gear stick on the right side in a right-steered car because it's, according
to him, natural in almost all other parts of the world to have it on the
right-
hand side. It is natural in Win GUIs to produce such individual and 
ill-ergonomic miracles of design in Windows (beginning with the start button
to shutdown the system).

>of the people in the world using PCs are using Windows, and 0.025 %
>(one-quarter of one percent) are using OS2: _________________________
>(have fun with it!).

Holger

-- 
If Microsoft is ever going to produce something that does not suck,
it is very likely a vacuum cleaner.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: GMD-AiS (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: uno@40th.com                                      18-Nov-99 10:26:26
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: first look at BEOS

From: uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com)

Holger Veit? (veit@simi.gmd.de?) wrote (18 Nov 1999 09:34:49 GMT):
>Really? Eat ...

Sure.  It's true.  Next time you can get WPS to actually solve
a problem, be sure to get back and tell everyone.  As it is,
even IBM dumped it three years ago.  What does that tell you?

 A. That IBM is a company that couldn't be trusted for the long haul
 B. That WPS wasn't worth the effort to maintain
 C. That no one really cared enough

Yes, of course you can pick all three... most reasonable people
know this already.  And yes, all answers are past tense.  It's
happened.  It's done.  It's over.  Accept it.





--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          18-Nov-99 05:29:15
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

clasqm@mweb.co.za (Michel Clasquin) posted:

> On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:55:15 GMT, mike@lionsgate.com (Mike Stephen)
> wrote:
> 
> >system level, not at an application level)!  Running two videos as
> >once tends to tax Beos to the limit.  Whereas I can run three or four
> 
> Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there's something wrong with
> your system. I only have a humble AMDK6 200 with 64M RAM, and my
> graphics card is just barely supported, but I can  run 4 or 5 AVI's
> and Quicktimes with no perceptible slowdown - and that's from CDROM.
> When I push it up to eight, they start running slower, but don't skip
> any frames that I can see. Windows chokes solid on just 2.

No, there's nothing wrong with his system. He's just an OS/2 advocate
spreading exaggerated claims of OS/2 superiority. Your refute doesn't
surprise me in the least. After using OS/2 for 2 yrs, then using NT, I
found no significant differences in multitasking between the two and I
did run tests and did things with NT that OS/2 advocates claimed
couldn't be done where NT multitasking is concerned. I'd take their
rants in this regard with a big grain of salt.
 
> The shortage of codecs is a fair comment, though. You do come across
> clips that BeOS doesn't recognise.
> 
> Regarding your comments on the interface: the tracker/deskbar
> interface is just a program, and on Be's site it  is stated explicitly
> somewhere in the FAQ that it can be replaced. So, learn to program the
> BeOS and duplicate the OS/2 shell. If there are really thousands of
> prospective customers out there, you might make yourself a small
> fortune in shareware fees. But don't expect Be to do it for you.
> They've developed a signature UI (which us hardened BeOS users have
> learned to love and respect) of their own, and IMHO they should stick
> to it.

He's one of those OS/2 advocates that's expects another OS/2 WPS out
of another OS. If he doesn't get this, then it's crap and a total
disappointment. The refute to this would be that OS/2 has made them
expectant of high standards and intolerant of mediocrity. I say
they're inflexible and almost obsessed in the main (this is a
generalisation please).
 
-- 
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: <alliem 'at' wtjam 'dot' net>
         

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         18-Nov-99 10:29:17
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>>> Curtis Bass writes:

>>>>>>>> Reread the material you snipped, Curtis:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> MT] I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
>>>>>>>> MT] classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
>>>>>>>> MT] so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
>>>>>>>> MT] The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is 
>>>>>>>> MT] AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is
ZipOutputStream.class.

>>>>>>>>> Mike, if you are reading this, what did you mean?

>>>>>>>> He meant what he wrote, Curtis.  Why ignore the written evidence?

>>>>>>> I did mean what I wrote, and what I wrote is that I can read the file 
>>>>>>> in question, which is javainuf.exe.

>>>>>> Illogical, Mike.  You wrote "I was able to read the file" and then
>>>>>> went on to reference what you read "The first file in classes.zip".

>>>>> You're leaving out the fact that I gave you several statistics about
>>>>> classes.zip itself, which I obtained by reading the file javainuf.exe.
>>>>> The point was to demonstrate that WinZip can read javainuf.exe

>>>> If that was your point, Mike, then why refer to the first and last
>>>> files in classes.zip?

>>> To show that I can read that file "in a meaninful fashion", as the
>>> rest of the sentence indicates...

>> "That file" is classes.zip, Mike.

> Not so.

Balderdash, Mike.  Exactly where did you read
"AbstractMethodError.class" and "ZipOutputStream.class" if not in
classes.zip?

> The exchange preceeding the paragraph above is this:

The exchange preceding the paragraph above is irrelevant, Mike, given
that we are talking about the paragraph above, not what precedes it.
Of course, if you really want to talk about preceding paragraphs, we
can go back even farther to a time when there was no reference to
javainuf.exe at all, because you hadn't even mentioned the name of the
top-level file yet.

> Since when is "classes.zip" a self-extracting exe?

Irrelevant, given that I never said it is, Mike.

> Answer: It isn't.

Irrelevant, given that I never said it is, Mike.

> I was able to extract classes.zip from "that file" (i.e. javainuf.exe) 
> without running OS/2.

You were able to extract AbstractMethodError.class from "that file"
(i.e. classes.zip), Mike.

> To prove that classes.zip was extracted successfully, I gave you some
> statistics about what *it* contained.

To allegedly prove that Java 2 security classes were not implemented,
you looked at the contents of classes.zip, Mike.  Too bad the security
enhancements are in secma.zip, thus you've been pointing to the wrong
file all along in a futile attempt to prove that Java 2 security classes
aren't there.

> Without that information, you could accuse me of knowing the contents
> of the executable, but being unable to read that contents in a
> meaninful fashion.

I can accuse you of knowing the contents of classes.zip and still being
unable to talk in a meaninful [sic] fashion about the Java 2 security
classes, because they were contained in a different top-level file.

>>>>> in a meaninful fashion (unlike LIST, which you keep comparing it to).

>>>> LIST can provide meaningful information, Mike.

>>> But not as meaningful as WinZip, in this case, which is why your
>>> comparison is absurd.

>> On the contrary, it depends on what kind of information you're looking
>> for, Mike, so my comparison is not absurd.

> You're lying again, Dave:

Balderdash, Mike.

> Earlier, you claimed using LIST doesn't make it comprehensible to a human,

What is "it" in that case, Mike?

> in an effort to show that I could not get any "meaningful" information out
> of the file without using OS/2.

You obviously can't keep track of what "it" refers to, Mike.

>>>>> I might, for example, mention to you that I am able to read a
>>>>> particular book, then go on to cite information about the first
>>>>> chapter within that book.

>>>> Like the title of the first chapter.  And then the title of the
>>>> last chapter.  The book in this case would be classes.zip.

>>> No, Dave, the book is javainuf.exe, and the chapter in question is
>>> classes.zip.

>> Then what are "AbstractMethodError.class" and "ZipOutputStream.class",
>> Mike?

> Those would be sentences within the chapter, Dave.

You called them files, Mike, namely the first and last files.

> It proves that I can read the chapter itself, and not just the table of
> contents of the book.

It also proves that you're reading the wrong book.

>>>>>> Remember, you were referring to classes.zip long before you ever
>>>>>> mentioned javainuf.exe; I had to coax that top-level filename out
>>>>>> of you.

>>>>> And, when I gave you the top level filename, that's the file we've been
>>>>> talking about.  Tell me, Dave, what's the most recent file I referred 
>>>>> to *before* the paragraph you mention?

>>>> Irrelevant, Mike, given that I'm dealing with your paragraph, not the
>>>> one before it.

>>> Quite relevant, as it demonstrates that you're taking the paragraph
>>> out of context.  When this fact is brought to your attention, you refuse 
>>> to consider the context.

>> On the contrary, I'm sticking to the context provided by the paragraph
>> itself.

> Yet, when taking a paragraph out of the article in which it appears,
> the context of the paragraph is lost.

Prove it, if you think you can, Mike.  Please show how the file being
referred to is lost when you mention AbstractMethodError.class.

>>> In fact, you consider the context "irrelevent".  That's because it 
>>> shows that you're completely wrong.

>> Balderdash, Mike.  Your own text clearly shows you referring to
>> classes.zip, thus you're the one who is completely wrong.

> Not at all.

Balderdash, Mike:

MT] classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed

> My own text clearly shows that "the file" refers to javainuf.exe.

Balderdash, Mike:

MT] classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed

> When I refer to classes.zip, I clearly say "classes.zip".

Thus your own text clearly shows you referring to classes.zip, to which
you responded "Not at all."  Do make up your mind, Mike.

>>>>> Yes, it's javainuf.exe.

>>>> And in paragraphs before that, you were referring to classes.zip, Mike.

>>> And intelligent readers can easily understand which file I'm referring
>>> to at which time.

>> So, do "intelligent readers" easily understand that you're referring to
>> classes.zip when you mention AbstractMethodError.class, Mike?

> When I say "classes.zip", I'm obviously referring to "classes.zip".

Thus your own text clearly shows you referring to classes.zip, to which
you responded "Not at all."  Do make up your mind, Mike.

> When I said "the file", I was clearly referring to "javainuf.exe".

Illogical, given that AbstractMethodError.class is not the first file in
javainuf.exe, Mike.

>>>>>>> Haven't you learned your lesson by now?

>>>>>> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't learned his lesson by
now.

>>>>> Amusingly, here you are trying to claim that the subject of *my*
sentence
>>>>> is what *you* misinterpreted it to be.  Tsk, tsk.

>>>> What alleged misinterpretation, Mike?  

>>> Your misinterpretation, Dave.

>> What alleged misinterpretation of mine, Mike?  

> Having that much trouble following along.

I see you didn't answer the question.  It figures.

>>>> Are you denying that you wrote the quotation above?

>>> Of course not, Dave; I'm telling you that your absurd misinterpretation 
>>> is both wrong

>> Illogical, Mike, given that your reference to AbstractMethodError.class
>> is an unambiguous indication that you're talking about classes.zip.

> When I write "classes.zip", I mean "classes.zip".

Thus your own text clearly shows you referring to classes.zip, to which
you responded "Not at all."  Do make up your mind, Mike.

> When I write "the file", I'm talking about javainuf.exe.

Illogical, given that AbstractMethodError.class is not the first file in
javainuf.exe, Mike.

>>> and dishonest.  

>> What's allegedly dishonest about the truth, Mike?

> Have you stopped beating your wife, Dave?

I see you didn't answer the question.  It figures.

>>> You aren't fooling anybody.

>> Irrelevant, given that I'm not trying to fool anybody, Mike.

> On the contrary, your continuous denials of the obvious show you
> *are* trying to fool people.

How ironic, coming from someone denying his own obvious references to
classes.zip.

> Or, you're at least trying to fool yourself.

Illogical, Mike.

>>> When you keep arguing points that you've clearly lost, you only make
>>> yourself look even more pathetic.

>> How ironic, coming from someone who looks even more pathetic.

> "I know you are, but what am I?"

Who wrote that, Mike?

> Grow up, Dave.

How ironic, coming from someone who needs to grow up.  For example,
I noticed that you've been silent about the following:

MT] "Can utilize when browsing"?  What the hell does that mean?

The best you could do is engage in a semantic argument over what an
applet and an application are.  Then there's the matter of why my
response was so short:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was 
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$1@news.hawaii.edu>
] 
] Mike Timbol writes:
] 
] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] > It's also bullshit.
] 
] Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.
] 
] > Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] > JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
] implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement SOME
] of it, however.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$1uh@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
] 
] In article <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>, Joseph  <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
] >
] >OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] It's also bullshit.  Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
] 
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>
] 
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
] 
] > In article <38028C72.8BB2DA3A@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
] 
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on. 
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
] 
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing 
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
] 
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: veit@simi.gmd.de                                  18-Nov-99 11:00:14
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: Re: first look at BEOS

From: veit@simi.gmd.de (Holger Veit)

On 18 Nov 1999 10:26:53 GMT, uno@40th.com <uno@40th.com> wrote:
>
>Holger Veit? (veit@simi.gmd.de?) wrote (18 Nov 1999 09:34:49 GMT):
>>Really? Eat ...
>
>Sure.  It's true.  Next time you can get WPS to actually solve
>a problem, be sure to get back and tell everyone.  As it is,
>even IBM dumped it three years ago.  What does that tell you?
>
> A. That IBM is a company that couldn't be trusted for the long haul
> B. That WPS wasn't worth the effort to maintain
> C. That no one really cared enough

Who cares about IBM's opinions anyway? Whether IBM dropped some software
doesn't suddenly make the software disappear from my systems. M$ has
in contrast plans to enforce this for their future crap - buy for some
system, and get a specific install disk for this system only: replace
the PC by a faster one, and you sit there without software unless
you open your wallet. We'll see what will happen, but I bet that
there is still a working WPS when all the Winlemmings have already
on and on bought new systems in order to keep up with nice-looking M$ 
garbage. Who says that WPS and OS/2 are tied together? And who says
that it is IBM that must take care of maintenance of either OS/2 or
WPS? (Note I don't talk about ridiculous Stardock experiments - you
have to approach this differently, and without IBM). You simply
lack imagination. You know reactos, as a different approach to 
solve the Microcrap monopoly problem? Don't expect anything from
IBM, but don't underestimate market dynamics either.

>Yes, of course you can pick all three... most reasonable people
>know this already.  And yes, all answers are past tense.  It's
>happened.  It's done.  It's over.  Accept it.

The opera ain't over till the fat lady sings. Haven't heard her yet.
The dance has just begun.

Holger

-- 
If Microsoft is ever going to produce something that does not suck,
it is very likely a vacuum cleaner.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: GMD-AiS (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         18-Nov-99 10:59:25
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Mike Timbol writes:

>>>>>>>> Because if it did, you'd get an error, perhaps not identical to the
>>>>>>>> one InfoZip generated, but an error nonetheless.

>>>>>>> So you're claiming that your copy of javainuf.exe, which you claimed
>>>>>>> to have downloaded from IBM's web site, is corrupt, or damaged in
>>>>>>> some other way,

>>>>>> I'm claiming the file is incomplete, Mike.

>>>>>>> but you did not realize it at first?

>>>>>> Netscape issued no error message, Mike.  All the other files that were
>>>>>> downloaded were fine.  Given that there are two runtime environments
>>>>>> to choose from, and the fact that I chose to install the one without
>>>>>> unicode fonts, I had no reason to extract javainuf.exe until you
>>>>>> claimed that you looked at its contents.

>>>>> In fact, even *after* I told you that I looked at its contents, you
>>>>> *still* did not bother to extract the contents of javainuf.exe.
>>>>> Isn't that correct?  Because, if you had, you would have realized that 
>>>>> your copy of the file was incomplete.

>>>> You hadn't even told me the name of the top-level file at that time,
>>>> Mike.

>>> You're full of shit, Dave:
>>>
>>> MT] >> For you, however, I will tell you that the name of the file you get
>>> MT] >> when you download the JDK is javainuf.exe.
>>>   ] >
>>> DT] > Ah, that's the answer I was expecting to get from you, Mike.  Now,
>>> DT] > let's take a closer look at that file.
>>>   ]
>>> DT] > Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file
and
>>> DT] > on an OS/2 system to boot!  
>>>
>>> Obviously, your quoted text occurs *after* I told you the name of the
>>> file, and you're claiming I must have run the executable file on OS/2 to 
>>> look at the contents.

>>> You came to that incorrect conclusion because you did not even bother
>>> to run your copy of the file on your own system.

>> I had already successfully run the other runtime environment, Mike.
>> Why run both?

> To determine whether or not there is something wrong with your copy
> of the file.  

Why would I do that, when all the other files were fine, Mike?

> I claimed that I used WinZip to look at the contents.

Specifically the security classes in classes.zip, Mike.  Too bad you
looked at the wrong file.

> You claim that all unzip tools should behave the same.

None of them can make the proper bytes magically appear, Mike.

> Yet you were unable to use your unzip tool to view the contents of
> the file in question.  

WinZip wouldn't be able to do any better with my copy of the file,
Mike.

> You then immediately concluded that I was lying,

Wouldn't be the first time you lied, Mike.  Consider your recent claim
that I deleted most of Joseph's response, when it was in fact you that
did so.  See below for the evidence.  Then there was your "good deal"
of the white paper being "completely false".  And the infamous lie
about having used "Olga and Horatio" only once.  Need I go on, Mike?

> instead of coming to the correct conclusion that there was something
> wrong with *your* copy of the file, a possibility you did not even
> consider.

On the contrary, I did consider it, Mike.  How do you think I managed
to come to that conclusion?  Certainly nobody here suggested it to me.

>>>>> In fact, I told you that I used WinZip as my extraction tool.

>>>> Seems like a reasonable tool to use on a zip file like classes.zip,
>>>> Mike.

>>> Except that, since you *know* I'm referring to javainuf.exe at that point, 

>>> you're lying again:

>> Balderdash, Mike.  You're just dishonestly pointing to the wrong text,
>> chronologically, again.

> Bullshit.

Just as wrong in your response to me as it was to Joseph, Mike.

> I told you *SPECIFICALLY* that "I used WinZIP to unzip the file".

And you *SPECIFICALLY* went on to refer to AbstractMethodError.class and
ZipOutputStream.class as the first and last files in classes.zip, Mike.

> "the file" is javainuf.exe.

Illogical, given that AbstractMethodError.class and ZipOutputStream.class
are not the first and last files in javainuf.exe, Mike.

>>> MT] >> I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.
>>> MT] >
>>> MT] >Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
>>>   ] >
>>> DT] >] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
>>> DT] >]  End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this file is 
not
>>> DT] >]  a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a multi-part archive.  In 
the
>>> DT] >]  latter case the central directory and zipfile comment will be
found on
>>> DT] >]  the last disk(s) of this archive.
>>> DT] >] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an archive
>>> DT] >] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
>>> DT] >]        and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.
>>>
>>> Obviously you know I'm talking about javainuf.exe, since that's the file 
>>> you tried to use InfoZip on.

>> That's because the above error message was generated *after* you told me
>> the name of the top-level file, Mike.

> Tell me, Dave, why did you want the name of the file in question?

Having more reading comprehension problems, Mike?  I already told you
long ago that readers could not verify your claims without knowing which
file to download.

> Obviously because you wanted to claim that I must be running OS/2 in order
> to read the contents of the file.

Obviously not, Mike, given that I had previously told you why I wanted the
name of the file in question.  You didn't have to guess.

> Why did you think that?

If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
choices do you have, Mike?

> Because you did not even consider that the file could be a self-extracting
> archive that WinZip could read.

InfoZip couldn't read it, Mike.  Why should I assume that WinZip could?

>> That doesn't change the fact that you were talking about the contents
>> from classes.zip long before you even told me the name of the top-level
>> file.

> Yes, Dave, long before this point, I *was* talking about the contents of
> classes.zip.

Glad you agree, Mike.

> However, did you ever doubt that I could use WinZip on a zip file?

classes.zip is not a top-level file, Mike.  Before one can determine
what you might have used to read the contents of that file, one needs to
know which top-level file you downloaded in the first place.

> No.

classes.zip is not a top-level file, Mike.  Before one can determine
what you might have used to read the contents of that file, one needs to
know which top-level file you downloaded in the first place.

> You claimed I could not use WinZip on javainuf.exe.

You certainly couldn't on my copy of that file, Mike.

> That's why I proved that I could.

You did no such thing, Mike.  Your evidence provided nothing more than
what I could have also provided without using WinZip at all, Mike.

> That's why someone posted a .jpg file of that very thing.

That "someone" didn't use my copy of the file, Mike.

> That's why your claim is wrong.

How ironic, coming from the person whose "bullshit" response to Joseph
is wrong.

>>>>>>> Is that the way you want to explain your mistake?

>>>>>> It's a fact that the file download was incomplete, Mike.  It's also a
>>>>>> fact that there was no indication of that until Marty stated that he
>>>>>> was able to unzip the file with InfoZip.  I at least came to the
>>>>>> correct conclusion that the file was to blame, so I downloaded another
>>>>>> copy.  

>>>>> No, Dave, you came to the incorrect conclusion that I must have been
>>>>> running OS/2 to extract the contents of the file.

>>>> If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
>>>> doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
>>>> choices do you have, Mike?

>>> You are proceeding from a false assumption.  You claim that unzip 
>>> doesn't work, when, in fact, it does work, provided the input is 
>>> complete.

>> You're presupposing knowledge of the completeness of the input, Mike.

> Not at all.

Balderdash, Mike.

> Unzip will work on a complete input regardless of your personal
> knowledge of the completeness of the input.

Unzip will not work on an incomplete input regardless of your personal
knowledge of the completeness of the input, Mike.

> You simply assumed that your copy of the file was complete.

All the other files were fine, Mike.

> That assumption turned out to be incorrect.

But perfectly logical, Mike.

>>> The correct conclusion, in your case, is that your copy of the file is 
>>> incomplete.

>> Illogical, given that all the other files were fine, Mike.

> Thus, we come to the fundamental, and fatal flaw of Dave's logic.

How ironic, coming from someone whose logic is fatally flawed.

> The correct conclusion is, in your mind, illogical.

All the other files were fine, Mike.

> Nevertheless, it is the correct conclusion.

Why is it correct to come to an illogical conclusion, Mike?

> How is this possible?

Do you really need to review the situation, Mike?

> Interestingly, the fact that you did *not* come to this conclusion

On what basis do you make that claim, Mike?

> demonstrates that you lied elsewhere, as well:

Balderdash, Mike.  I did indeed follow IBM's instructions.

> MT] >> Further, if you can use InfoZip to extract the contents of the file
> MT] >> yourself, then you have your own proof that one is not required to
> MT] >> run the archive to extract the files.
>   ]  
> DT] > I followed IBM's instructions, Mike.
>
> If you had really follows IBM's instructions, as you claimed, you would
> have known the file in question was incomplete.

Balderdash, Mike.  IBM's instructions indicated that only one runtime
environment was needed.  I had already chosen the one without unicode,
which has the same classes.zip file, which happens to be a diversionary
tactic on your part, given that the Java 2 security classes were
contained in secma.zip.

> Obviously, you didn't follow their instructions at all.

On the contrary, I followed the instructions, Mike.  See above.  Meanwhile,
you obviously don't even know what those instructions are.

>>>>>> Amazing that people jumped to the erroneous conclusion that InfoZip was
>>>>>> somehow less capable at unzipping the file than WinZip, and that it
makes
>>>>>> OS/2 look bad.  But I'm accustomed to seeing such erroneous conclusions
>>>>>> from people in this newsgroup.

>>>>> So tell me, would your conclusion that I must have been running OS/2
>>>>> be one of these "erroneous conclusions"?

>>>> If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
>>>> doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
>>>> choices do you have, Mike?

>>> Tell me, Dave, was you conclusion the correct one?  Is it true that 
>>> I must be running OS/2 to extract the contents of the file in question 
>>> (the file being "javainuf.exe")?

>> If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
>> doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
>> choices do you have, Mike?

> It's truly sad that you are unable to admit such an obvious mistake.

How ironic, coming from the truly sad person who is unable to admit such
an obvious mistake as the "bullshit" response to Joseph.

> The only thing this question demonstrates is that people who make the
> same mistaken assumptions as you did may come to the same incorrect
> conclusion.  It doesn't change the fact that your conclusion is incorrect.

On the contrary, Mike, the whole situation demonstrates your own
mistaken assumption that the Java 2 security classes were contained
in classes.zip, thus you came to an incorrect conclusion about the
functionality of those classes being implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.
How ironic.

> Do you realize, in retrospect, how ridiculous and stupid it was for you 
> to go spouting off like this...
>
>   "Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from
>    requires you to run OS/2.  Imagine that.  Mike Timbol actually
>    running OS/2.  That's a keeper."
>
> ....based on your own incorrect conclusions?

Do you realize, in retrospect, how ridiculous and stupid it was for you
to go spouting off like this:

MT] Bullshit.

MT] That's why your response to my post to Joseph was 
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

MT] "Can utilize when browsing"?  What the hell does that mean?

Not to mention your claim that the relevant contents were in classes.zip.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

MT] Why didn't you address that section?  Because you couldn't.  So
MT] you deleted it,

DT] I never deleted that section, Mike

MT] Of course you did.  That's why your response to my post to Joseph was 
MT] so short -- you deleted most of my post.

Here's my original response to Mike Timbol in this thread, quoted in
its entirety:

] From: tholenAntiSpam@ifa.hawaii.edu
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 14 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u4cj4$7eb$1@news.hawaii.edu>
] 
] Mike Timbol writes:
] 
] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] > It's also bullshit.
] 
] Incorrect.  OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2 functionality.
] 
] > Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] > JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] Irrelevant, given that Joseph did not say that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
] implements ALL of Java 1.2 functionality.  It does implement SOME
] of it, however.

Here's the article of Mike's to which I was responding, also quoted
in its entirety:

] From: timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol)
] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 13 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <7u0jk0$1uh@dfw-ixnews11.ix.netcom.com>
] 
] In article <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>, Joseph  <josco@ibm.net> wrote:
] >
] >OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  
] 
] It's also bullshit.  Download something like NetBeans, that requires 
] JDK 1.2.  Try to run it on OS/2.  No dice.
] 
] JDK 1.1.x -> JDK 1.2 is a major upgrade; it's not something that
] IBM snuck in when going from 1.1.7 -> 1.1.8.
] 
]      - Mike

And here's the posting of Joseph's to which Mike was responding, again
quoted in its entirety.

] From: Joseph <josco@ibm.net>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         18-Nov-99 10:59:25
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:13
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

] Subject: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!
] Date: 11 Oct 1999 00:00:00 GMT
] Message-ID: <38029716.1734BD51@ibm.net>
] 
] "David H. McCoy" wrote:
] 
] > In article <38028C72.8BB2DA3A@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
] > >> >unzipping and rebuilding of the source tree, it would be done by now.
] > >> >
] > >> >- Marty
] > >>
] > >> IMO, if parity was priority, they all would be ready simultaneously.
] > >
] > >Who said it was?  It seems important to you strangely enough, however.
] > >
] > >- Marty
] > >
] > >
] >
] > Well, Marty. Let's try to reason this out. It may be difficult. IBM has
ported
] > 2.02, 4.04, and 4.61 so it must be obvious, even to such an indepedent
OS/2
] > user such as yourself, that parity is important. Clearly, what *isn't*
] > important is achieving this parity in a timely manner.
] 
] Parity in what regard?  Stability?  That's more important to IBM than MS or
] Netscape.
] How about parity as measured by comparing version numbers?  No.  That's a
metric
] that is not justifiable, not even close to understanding what is going on. 
No
] wonder you bitch and moan.  "My software version is higher than yours --
let's
] play software pokeman. "
] 
] OS/2 Netscape V 2.02 implements Windows V 3.0 functionality.  Bummer.  OS/2
Java
] 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  IBM isn't playing 
your
] game.  They are adding functionality based on need and reliability and
stability.
] They do the development.  They set the standard.  If that confuses you then
we'll
] have to accept your confusion as it indicates the low quality of your
] understanding.
] 
] Windows communicator 4.70 has more hit points than Communicator 4.61 for
OS/2.

As you can clearly see, the reason that my response is so short is
because the posting to which I was responding is so short, not
because I deleted most of his post.  Indeed, the person responsible
for shortening Joseph's posting is none other than Mike Timbol.  He
shortened it to a single line!  And yet here we have Mike Timbol
blaming me for deleting the text that made it so short.

> Not so.  You had to insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]" above

Where did I insert "[to Joseph Coughlan]", Mike?  No such insertion
appears in the posting available in the deja.com archive, Mike.  Yet
another one of your lies.

> because there would be no other way for readers to know who I was
> responding to

On the contrary, there is, namely the following, which appears in the
archive of my posting at deja.com:

] > Joseph wrote:
] 
] >> OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  Bummer, bummer.  

> -- you deleted everything I was responding to,

The above sentence is the ONLY thing you were responding to, Mike, and
I certainly did not delete it, as the archival copy clearly shows.

Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         18-Nov-99 12:06:16
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:14
Subj: (1/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:

CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so inclined.

I am deleting all but the most recent new text.

Curtis Bass writes:

> Well, you can believe whatever fantasy suits you, Dave.

What alleged "fantasy", Curtis?

> "I know you are but what am I?"

Who wrote that, Curtis?
"Well, you can believe whatever fantasy suits you."

> Obviously, you have no logical argument at this point,

Obviously I do, Curtis, which is why I've presented it so many times
already.

> so you are reduced to mimicking my responses.

On the contrary, you were mimicking my responses, Curtis.

> -- ["I Know You Are But What Am I" snipped] --

How can you snip what wasn't there, Curtis?  I certainly didn't write
that.  "Well, you can believe whatever fantasy suits you."

> Sounds like "pontification" on your part -- another unsubstantiated
> claim.

On the contrary, I've substantiated it several times already, Curtis.
How many times do I need to repeat myself?

> Like I said, you can believe whatever fantasy suits you.

What alleged "fantasy", Curtis?

> And I suggest you learn how to admit it when, in an adversarial
> exchange, you are wrong.

How ironic, coming from the person who has yet to admit being wrong
about me being "inept".  I presume some readers do recognize the
essential difference between us.  I was addressing an issue, namely
the Java 1.2 functionality implemented in Java 1.1.8 for OS/2, while
you were engaging in a personal attack.

> Have it your way, Dave.

Are you Burger King, Curtis?

> -- [Two "I Know You Are But What Am I"s snipped] --

How can you snip what wasn't there, Curtis?  I certainly didn't write
that.  "Well, you can believe whatever fantasy suits you."

> Whatever, Dave. You are succeeding in boring me with your constant,
> whining denials of everything that doesn't suit your little fantasy.

What alleged "fantasy", Curtis.  And obviously you're not bored,
considering how much energy you've put into your personal attack.

> "I prefer the application of logic over the application of invective."
> Dave Tholen -- 11/17/99

And I have been applying logic, Curtis.

> No mention of "substitution" there, Dave.

Not in that one sentence, Curtis.  So what?  That's certainly not all
that I wrote.  Trying the dishonest approach again?

> Actually, it isn't "pontification" at all, since it is followed up with
> explanatory text:

On the contrary, it is, given my response to your so-called "explanatory
text", Curtis.

> "Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
> on an OS/2 system to boot!"

If unzip doesn't work and the self-extraction on some system that
doesn't support OS/2 applications also doesn't work, what other
choices do you have, Curtis?

> I already know your vacuous response, but go ahead and repeat it anyway.

What's allegedly "vacuous" about my response, Curtis?

> So the answer is "No, Curtis, I cannot see the difference," even though
> that difference is quite obvious.

Having more reading comprehension problems, Curtis?  That's not my
answer at all.  You're just making up answers for the fantasy that
suits you.  How ironic.

> You see what you want to see. No surprises, but hardly befitting a
> supposed scientist and university professor.

Feel free to challenge my publications or employment, Curtis.  Do you
have any scientific publications that I can look over?

> When the conclusion is clearly wrong, blithely repeating the "logical"
> steps taken to arrive at said conclusion, rather than admit that the
> conclusion is indeed wrong, is hiding behind the "logic," Dave.

I see that you now want to engage in a semantic argument over what
constitutes "hiding".  I'm not surprised.  How ironic, coming from
somebody "hiding" behind the logic of his "inept" claim.

> "What it looks like is irrelevant. What you can prove is relevant."

See above for the evidence, Curtis.

> -- ["I Know You Are But What Am I" snipped] --

How can you snip what wasn't there, Curtis?  I certainly didn't write
that.  "Well, you can believe whatever fantasy suits you."

> How does "WinZip is superior to InfoZip" translate into "WinZip make[s]
> the proper bytes magically appear," Dave?

There's more to the claim of WinZip's superiority than just those five
words, Curtis.  Clearly, the claim involved the ability to read a file
that InfoZip could not, allegedly.

> Because I knew WinZip could and did extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE
> successfully.

You didn't try it on my copy of the file, Curtis.  You jumped to an
erroneous conclusion, namely that our copies of the file were
identical.  "Inept", to coin a term.

> Because I did it.

"A priori", Curtis?  What was your motivation for doing so "a priori"?

> In fact, my very first response to you

Your first response to me was not "a priori", Curtis.  Apparently you
don't even know what "a priori" means.

> contained a JPEG attachment of WinZip displaying JAVAINUF.EXE's contents.

That alleged posting never appeared on our news server, and another
reader noted that it didn't appear at deja.com either, Curtis.  Of
course, I told you that before.

> Unfortunately, USENET choked on the attachment, and not all news servers
> carried that particular posting.

That's your problem, Curtis, not mine.

> The bottom line is that the JPEG Marty posted on his web page, the
> evidence you have repeatedly ignored,

Given that my copy of the file wasn't used, Curtis.  That's something
else I've told you before.

> was submitted as evidence before either one of us knew that your copy
> of JAVAINUF.EXE was corrupt.

I said it was incomplete, Curtis, not corrupt.  I have no evidence
to support a claim that any of the bytes are incorrect.

> I used the tools I had, to the best of my ability.

So did I, Curtis.  Yet you called me "inept".

> When I learned that USENET didn't handle my binary attachment in a
> non-binary group as well as I would have liked, I e-mailed the
> attachment to Marty,

You could have just emailed it to me directly, Curtis.

> and he posted it on the web so that anyone could view it.

Still didn't use my copy of the file, Curtis.

> Because I knew, a priori, that the statement, which the error messages
> were supposed to support, was erroneous.

"A priori", Curtis?  What was your motivation for doing so "a priori"?
Do you even know what "a priori" means?

> If it gives you a warm fuzzy, then have it your way by all means, Dave.

Are you Burger King, Curtis?

> Like I have said before, you can believe whatever fantasy suits you.

What alleged "fantasy", Curtis?

> -- ["I Know You Are But What Am I" snipped] --

How can you snip what wasn't there, Curtis?  I certainly didn't write
that.  "Well, you can believe whatever fantasy suits you."

> -- [repetitious "irrelevant"s snipped] --

Hiding the evidence for your irrelevant remarks, I see.  I'm not
surprised.

> Nit-picking over spelling, are we?

Deleting evidence of your irrelevant remarks, are we?

> I hereby claim victory.

Typical pontification.  I could just as easily claim victory on the
basis of your deletion tactic, Curtis.

> So the answer is "yes?"

Having more reading comprehension problems, Curtis?  Is that what I
wrote?

> You are the one whose making this comparison, Dave.

So what, Curtis?  That doesn't mean I know what Newton might have done.
It's a hypothetical situation.  How would you expect me to justify an
answer either way?

> If you don't know the facts, then you shouldn't be shooting off your
> mouth about Newton's alleged "ineptness" allegedly based on "my
> reasoning."

I know enough of the facts to justify applying your reasoning to his
situation, Curtis.

> But then, shooting off your mouth is what got you into trouble in the
> first place, isn't it?

What alleged "trouble", Curtis?  How ironic, coming from the person who
"shot off his mouth" making a personal attack rather than sticking to
the issue.

> -- ["irrelevant" snipped] --

Hiding the evidence for your irrelevant remarks, I see.  I'm not
surprised.

> Nope. You failed to run JAVAINUF.EXE in OS/2 to verify its integrity.

I had already run the other runtime environment, Curtis.  Only one is
needed, and it contained classes.zip.

> Lame excuses about "not neededing to run it" because you "already had a
> Java environment set up" are just that, lame excuses.

What's allegedly "lame" about it, Curtis?  Just because you say so?
That's called pontification.

> If you already had Java running, then you had no need to run InfoZip
> against JAVAINUF.EXE,

On the contrary, I did so to contradict Timbol's claim.  You are
familiar with the -v option, aren't you, Curtis?

> but you did do that, didn't you?

On the contrary, I did so to contradict Timbol's claim.  You are
familiar with the -v option, aren't you, Curtis?

> And the reason was to support your erroneous "Yet to look at the
> contents, one must have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to
> boot!" claim.

I was countering Timbol's claim, Curtis, not supporting my own.

> Your lack of consistency is remarkable.

Your lack of logic and reading comprehension is remarkable, Curtis.
Your ability to make personal attacks while avoiding the issue because
of "ignorance" is also remarkable, Curtis.

> What evidence have I allegedly ignored, Curtis?

Now why would you ask yourself a question in a response to me, Curtis?

> The aforementioned JPEG.

It didn't utilize my copy of the file, Curtis.  That made it irrelevant.

> Mike's statements that he used WinZip.

How did I allegedly ignore that, Curtis?  I countered it.  Obviously I
didn't ignore it.

> Mike's explanation of what he meant when he referred to "the file."

On the contrary, I've reproduced the relevant quotation showing a
direct reference to classes.zip, Curtis, thus Mike's so-called
"explanation" is just another one of his lies.

> Etcetera.

You still haven't come up with a valid one, Curtis.

> I can easily see why you would consider it "too bad," although I am
> confident that your "official" reason has nothing to do with the obvious
> one.

What is allegedly my "official" reason, Curtis?

> What is a "maneuvar" Dave?

Don't you know, Curtis?  You're the one who brought it up.

> Now there's a leap in logic . . .

Your "leap in logic", Curtis.

> Kindly explain how the fact that gravitational lensing was observed
> after its prediction by Einstien leads to the notion that Isaac Newton
> had the means to predict it.

You explained that the phenomenon was observed after it was predicted,
Curtis.  That applies to both Einstein and Newton.  Thus your statement
does nothing to support your argument.

> -- ["irrelevant" snipped] --

Hiding the evidence for your irrelevant remarks, I see.  I'm not
surprised.

> I see you grasping at straws, Dave.

How ironic, coming from the person who resorted to a personal attack
and stayed away from the issue because of ignorance!

> You *DID* have the tools necessary to determine whether your
> JAVAINUF.EXE was intact, Dave.

And I did so, Curtis.

> You also *DID* have access to an uncorrupted copy (via the internet).

I said it was incomplete, Curtis, not corrupt.  I have no evidence
to support a claim that any of the bytes are incorrect.

> You *COULD* have rectified the situation, but you chose not to.

On the contrary, I did so, Curtis.

> You didn't even bother to determine whether your situation needed
> rectification.

On the contrary, I did so, Curtis.  What do you think led us to this
point?

> You simply got error messages and posted them as evidence before even
> determining what the messages really meant.

How ironic, coming from the person who posted "inept" before even
determining what the situation really was.

> That hardly qualifies as a valid comparison to the tools and data
> available to Newton.

An apple falling to the ground?

> Wrong.

Then how do you explain the fact that I determined my copy of the
file to be incomplete, Curtis?

> You didn't exercise the self-extraction module contained within
> JAVAINUF.EXE.

I had already done so with the other runtime environment, Curtis.

> Had you done so, you would have saved yourself two weeks
> worth of embarrassment.

What alleged embarrassment, Curtis?  Timbol is the one who should
be embarrassed by first claiming that Joseph's remark is "bullshit"
and then using the contents of the wrong file to try and prove his
claim.  You should also be embarrassed by jumping to the conclusion
that I am "inept".  That WinZip is superior to InfoZip as an unzipper
of zip archives is another embarrassing conclusion.  That it makes
OS/2 look bad is another embarrassing conclusion.

> I am not "presupposing" anything, Dave.

On the contrary, you are, Curtis.

> If you had originally used the self-extraction module tool, which you
> had at your disposal,

And which I did use, Curtis.  How do you think I managed to get a copy
of classes.zip?

> you would have immediately known that your JAVAINUF.EXE was corrupt,

I had already chosen one of the two runtime environments, Curtis.

> *BEFORE* ineptly using the misinterpreted InfoZip messages to support
> your erroneous claim.

How ironic, coming from the person who didn't determine the situation
*BEFORE* ineptly claiming that I am "inept".

> I repeat: You can believe whatever fantasy suits you.

What alleged "fantasy", Curtis?

> Didn't prompt it either.

On what basis do you make that claim, Curtis?

> On the basis of observation, Dave.

What alleged "observation", Curtis?  That's just a delaying tactic.

> -- [Two "I Know You Are But What Am I"s snipped] --

How can you snip what wasn't there, Curtis?  I certainly didn't write
that.  "Well, you can believe whatever fantasy suits you."

> It *IS* superior Dave.

On what basis do you make that claim, Curtis?

> Have you ever tried to use InfoZip to unzip a multi-part archive?

Irrelevant, given that javainuf.exe is not a multi-part archive,
Curtis.

> WinZip 7.0 can handle multi-part archives without any problem.

Irrelevant, given that javainuf.exe is not a multi-part archive,
Curtis.

> What "initial erroneous conclusion" are you talking about, Dave?

That I am allegedly "inept", Curtis.

> You don't even know what's going on, do you?

Obviously I do, Curtis.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         18-Nov-99 12:06:16
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:14
Subj: (2/2) Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

> My initial conclusion was that "Yet to look at the contents, one must
> have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!" was an
> erroneous statement, and I came to that conclusion *AFTER* unzipping
> JAVAINUF.EXE using WinZip.

What you initially posted, Curtis, is that I am allegedly "inept".

> No. I *knew* that WinZip can handle multi-part archives
> and that InfoZip cannot.

Irrelevant, given that javainuf.exe is not a multi-part archive,
Curtis.

> Ergo, I *knew* that WinZip was superior at the outset.

So, you admit to making comments irrelevant to the issue?

> (Ahem) I lacked the tools necessary to determine whether *YOUR* copy of
> JAVAINUF.EXE was corrupt, Dave.

You didn't even consider the possibility, Curtis.

> Like you have stated several times, there is was no logical reason
> to assume your file to be corrupt at the outset.

Which didn't stop you from calling me "inept".  Thus it shouldn't stop
you from calling yourself "inept", Curtis.

> You see, *YOU* are the one who's making an issue out of this,

I'm not the one who posted the "inept" personal attack, Curtis.  That
would be you.

> but *YOU* are the *ONLY ONE*  who was in a position to determine
> JAVAINUF.EXE's integrity at the outset.

You were in a position to suggest that I check the file's integrity,
Curtis.  You did not.  I did so of my own volition.

> *YOU* failed to use the self-extraction module tool to make that
> determination.

I had already successfully run the chosen runtime environment, Curtis.
Just how many times do I need to tell you these things?

> I know that you will refuse to comprehend this, but you are simply
> burning yourself more each time you respond to me with these half-baked
> arguments of yours.

How ironic, coming from the person who "refuses" to comprehend how he
burning himself more each time he responds with his personal attacks.

> -- ["I Know You Are But What Am I" snipped] --

How can you snip what wasn't there, Curtis?  I certainly didn't write
that.  "Well, you can believe whatever fantasy suits you."

> Trying to, and doing a rather inept job of it, as I keep pointing out.

What's allegedly "inept" about my application of your reasoning to
that situation, Curtis?

> -- ["I Know You Are But What Am I" snipped] --

How can you snip what wasn't there, Curtis?  I certainly didn't write
that.  "Well, you can believe whatever fantasy suits you."

> Self-extraction of a file *OTHER THAN JAVAINUF.EXE* Dave.

One of two runtime environments supplied by IBM, Curtis.

> Can't keep it straight, can you?

How ironic, coming from the person who can't keep it straight.

> There was no reason to run InfoZip against JAVAINUF.EXE and not run
> JAVAINUF.EXE itself, Dave.

On the contrary, I did so to contradict Timbol's claim.  You are
familiar with the -v option, aren't you, Curtis?

> Believe whatever you want to believe, Dave.

It's not a matter of belief, Curtis, but rather reality.

> Evading the admission of your errors by whatever means possible.

Illogical, given that I have admitted to my errors, Curtis.

> I am not accusing Newton of anything, Dave.

Typical double standard.

> *YOU* are the one calling him inept (allegedly by "my reasoning"),
> not me.

That's your reasoning at work, Curtis.  Maybe someday you'll
understand why your claim is what's really "inept" here.

> Yes I am Dave. Openly. See above.

See my response above, Curtis.

> Neither do you,

Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

> if you would claim that it's like that of Sir Isaac Newton.

To the extent that I used the analogy, it is, Curtis.  Of course, that
wouldn't stop you from stretching the analogy beyond the limits of
applicability.

> Right. Proving to the world that The Great Dave Tholen is just as
> prone to error as any normal human being is "arrogant."

And what motivated you to engage in such a quest, Curtis?

> Whatever, Dave.  I have obviously won this exchange,

Typical pontification.

> your inevitable, flacid denials (implied or otherwise) notwithstanding.

"Well, you can believe whatever fantasy suits you."

> This is my final post in this subthread.

Famous last words.  Of course, you could simply engage in a semantic
argument over what constitutes "this subthread" the way Marty did.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jaro.larnos@vanhustyonkeskusliit...               18-Nov-99 12:20:24
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:14
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

Message sender: jaro.larnos@vanhustyonkeskusliitto.fi

From: Jaro Larnos <jaro.larnos@vanhustyonkeskusliitto.fi>

Christopher Smith wrote:

> "DC" <dc@pdq.net> wrote in message
> news:0IszOHEF7ccWeVzcklFM4hm5YJim@4ax.com...
> > On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 22:27:41 GMT, clasqm@mweb.co.za (Michel Clasquin)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there's something wrong with
> > >your system. I only have a humble AMDK6 200 with 64M RAM, and my
> > >graphics card is just barely supported, but I can  run 4 or 5 AVI's
> > >and Quicktimes with no perceptible slowdown - and that's from CDROM.
> > >When I push it up to eight, they start running slower, but don't skip
> > >any frames that I can see. Windows chokes solid on just 2.
> >
> > Interesting.  Given the massive contention that occurs when multiple
> > resources hit a CDROM at the same time, I have to wonder how you
> > manage to do this.
>
> It could be pre-caching large chunks of the clips in RAM first.

    With >128Mb it'd sound more realistic but with 64Mb.. you've
    gotta laugh. How much does BeOS fill up memory?

- V o A -


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vanhusty=F6n?= keskusliitto (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: uno@40th.com                                      18-Nov-99 12:28:13
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:14
Subj: Re: first look at BEOS

From: uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com)

Holger Veit? (veit@simi.gmd.de?) wrote (18 Nov 1999 11:00:28 GMT):
> You simply>lack imagination.

I don't have the time to waste going down a dead-end road.
That's all there is to it.  Disagree all you want, but what
could barely be called a road has run out.

>The opera ain't over till the fat lady sings. Haven't heard her yet.

The end has come and gone, Holger -- you missed the end.
Didn't you notice that -everybody- has left?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         18-Nov-99 12:10:10
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:14
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451501

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty's still at his "infantile game".  Here's today's digest:

1> And speaking of parrot responses, here's a smathering of more of Dave's
1> hypocrisy from just the few posts of his that I bothered to scan today:

1> Tholen want a cracker?

1> What's unfortunate is that Tholen doesn't realize that he is finding
1> his own behavior irksome and counterproductive.  How embarassing!  And
1> despite the evidence I've presented, he still claims that I have no basis
1> for saying that he's playing an "infantile game".  Here's what Dr. Sbaitso
1> has to say today, in an attempt to help Tholen work through his mental
1> distresses:

1> MUST BE SOMEONE ELSE

1> BUT YOU COULD BE RIGHT

1> WHAT ARE YOUR REAL PROBLEMS?

1> Note: no response

1> Note: no response

1> Note: text omitted from original article

1> Note: no response

1> Note: no response

1> Note: no response

1> Note: no response

1> Note: no response

1> Note: no response

1> Note: no response

1> Note: no response

1> Note: no response

1> Note: no response

1> DAVE THOLEN, IT IS SO NICE TALKING TO YOU, BYE!

2> Dave Tholen wrote (using a more powerful "brain" than his again):

2> YOU'D BETTER WATCH OUT FOR YOUR PLANS HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS.

2> DAVE THOLEN, I NEED MORE COMPUTING POWER TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION

2> WHAT DO YOU THINK?

2> FORGET ABOUT ME, I AM MORE CONCERN OF YOU

2> DOES IT PLEASE YOU TO BELIEVE THAT I AM GOING THROUGH ALL THIS?
 
2> I AM NOT SURE IF I AM SURE THAT THOSE AM ELIZA'S?

2> MY PLANS HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS. IS NOT OF YOUR CONCERN

2> WHAT IS IT THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW?

2> HOW DO YOU KNOW?

2> ARE YOU REALLY TALKING ABOUT ME?

2> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

2> WHY ARE YOU SO INTERESTED IN WHETHER I AM SURE THAT THOSE AM ELIZA'S?

2> WHY THE UNCERTAIN TONE ?

2> I AM NOT INTERESTING, ASK ME ABOUT SOME OTHER THINGS INSTEAD

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: matt.spamblows.vaughn@mindspring...               18-Nov-99 06:54:04
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:14
Subj: Re: The Microsnot PR Quiz

Message sender: matt.spamblows.vaughn@mindspring.com

From: matt.spamblows.vaughn@mindspring.com (M. Vaughn)

In article <WhPY3.23950$zd.249695@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com>, "Brent
Davies" <brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com> wrote:

> M. Vaughn <matvon-nospam@mad.scientist.com> wrote in message
> news:matvon-nospam-1611991003290001@bushlab4.life.uiuc.edu...
> | In article <KD7Y3.21235$zd.223242@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com>, "Brent
> | Davies" <brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com> wrote:
> |
> [snip]
> |
> | Um, I didn't make the comment about MS's name.  Do you *know* what an
> | astroturfer is?  Worse yet, are *you* an astroturfer?
> 
> If I was getting paid by MS to be here, it wouldn't be to talk to the likes
> of you.
> 
> -B

Ooh, I'm stinging from the pain of that slap. Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! Wait, that
was *kinda nice*.  So, um, thank you sir, may I have another?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Lightyear Media (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mike@lionsgate.com                                18-Nov-99 13:01:28
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:14
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: mike@lionsgate.com (Mike Stephen)

In message <sdIzOBlEE6Aojmy+ALnAlrxatedl@4ax.com> - Hobbyist
<alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:29:31 -0500 writes:
:>
:>clasqm@mweb.co.za (Michel Clasquin) posted:
:>
:>> On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 08:55:15 GMT, mike@lionsgate.com (Mike Stephen)
:>> wrote:
:>> 
:>> >system level, not at an application level)!  Running two videos as
:>> >once tends to tax Beos to the limit.  Whereas I can run three or four
:>> 
:>> Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but there's something wrong with
:>> your system. I only have a humble AMDK6 200 with 64M RAM, and my
:>> graphics card is just barely supported, but I can  run 4 or 5 AVI's
:>> and Quicktimes with no perceptible slowdown - and that's from CDROM.
:>> When I push it up to eight, they start running slower, but don't skip
:>> any frames that I can see. Windows chokes solid on just 2.
:>
:>No, there's nothing wrong with his system. He's just an OS/2 advocate
:>spreading exaggerated claims of OS/2 superiority. Your refute doesn't
:>surprise me in the least. After using OS/2 for 2 yrs, then using NT, I
:>found no significant differences in multitasking between the two and I
:>did run tests and did things with NT that OS/2 advocates claimed
:>couldn't be done where NT multitasking is concerned. I'd take their
:>rants in this regard with a big grain of salt.

If you found no significant differences between NT's multitasking nd
OS/2's multitasking then I think you really do not run more than 2-3
apps at once.  On my system just booting up to my standard screen,
takes 24 active tasks,  33 processes, and 133 threads.  

Oh please  This from a Win advovate...  no less! My system is a bit on
the slow side, it is a AMD 450Mhz with 64 megs dram.  If I play both
the mpgs (the monitors thrown off the building) at the same time, they
do not play smoothly at all.  This is fact, not exageration.

:> 
:>> The shortage of codecs is a fair comment, though. You do come across
:>> clips that BeOS doesn't recognise.
:>> 
:>> Regarding your comments on the interface: the tracker/deskbar
:>> interface is just a program, and on Be's site it  is stated explicitly
:>> somewhere in the FAQ that it can be replaced. So, learn to program the
:>> BeOS and duplicate the OS/2 shell. If there are really thousands of
:>> prospective customers out there, you might make yourself a small
:>> fortune in shareware fees. But don't expect Be to do it for you.
:>> They've developed a signature UI (which us hardened BeOS users have
:>> learned to love and respect) of their own, and IMHO they should stick
:>> to it.

It is very similar to the windows interface, and nothing like the WPS
with SOM and DSOM.

:>
:>He's one of those OS/2 advocates that's expects another OS/2 WPS out
:>of another OS. If he doesn't get this, then it's crap and a total
:>disappointment. The refute to this would be that OS/2 has made them
:>expectant of high standards and intolerant of mediocrity. I say
:>they're inflexible and almost obsessed in the main (this is a
:>generalisation please).

Obsessed?  All I want is an operating system that at least meets my
needs.  Windows certainly doesn't, and I was hoping BEOS did.  It
doesn't either.  I do wish someone out there would adapt the SOM/DSOM
model and incorporate it into a GUI like the WPS.  I do not need it to
look like the WPS, just act like it.  At least I consider BEOS a lot
better than Windows NT.  However it still is no match for Warp OS/2. 
I can demonstrate it any time for anyone who wishes.  Just send me a
note when you are in Vancouver.  I have both operating systems
installed and can demontrate those same two mpg files in both BEOS and
OS/2.  You can decide which operating system can handle the two MPGS
better.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: M Stephen Contracting (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lucien@metrowerks.com                             18-Nov-99 13:02:20
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:14
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: lucien@metrowerks.com

In article <80vj78$atj$3@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't addressed either of
the
> >> two simple tests.
>
> > This does not answer the question.
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't answered the questions
> contained in the two simple tests or in the more recent analogy.
>
> > Answer the question put to you:
>
> Take the two simple tests, Lucien.  Answer the question put to you:
>
> ] In the absence of clouds, you would not expect it to rain.  Now, how
> ] does such a statement apply to the weather here in Hawaii, Lucien?
> ] Hint:  we have the presence of clouds.
>
> > According to your statement, under what conditions does "implements"
> > "....allow for either 'some' or 'all' functionality..."?
>
> Perhaps you'd like to tell me how the statement you keep pointing to
> applies to the JDK sentence, Lucien.
>
> > Here is your statement again FYI:
>
> I don't need it again, Lucien, but I do find it ironic that you would
> delete text to alter the context.
>
> > "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> > 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> > information."
>
> And how does that concern the JDK sentence, Lucien, as you've
repeatedly
> insisted?
>
> And now for the two simple tests again:
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
> Lucien:
>
> ] #1:  It rained today.
> ]
> ] #2:  It rained today until sunset.
> ]
> ] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day?
> ]
> ] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore
> ] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the
> ] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to
> ] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.
> ]
> ] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.
>
> Test grade:  F.
>
> Here's another little test for you, Lucien:
>
> ] #3:  It did rain today.
> ]
> ] #4:  It didn't rain today.
> ]
> ] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
> ]
> ] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
> ] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered
unambiguously,
> ] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the
question
> ] to be answered unambigiously.
> ]
> ] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.
>
> Test grade:  F.
>
> Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
> mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the
definition
> of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
> corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality"
thread,
> where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
> ambiguous.
>
> Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".
> Or are you really that idiotic?
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbzh@my-deja.com                                  18-Nov-99 12:59:29
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 21:42:14
Subj: Re: first look at BEOS

From: cbzh@my-deja.com

In article <slrn837i1o.8bh.veit@simi.gmd.de>,
  veit@simi.gmd.de (Holger Veit) wrote:
> On 18 Nov 1999 07:47:39 GMT, uno@40th.com <uno@40th.com> wrote:
> >
> >Jean-Pierre Cabani'e? (cabanieATlep-philipsDOTfrREMOVE@nospam.org?)
wrote (Thu
> >>Deliver an UI modeled after the OS/2 WPS. Achieving a WinSomething
clone will
> >>be a failure.
> >
> >That's like an Englishman coming to the states and saying,
> >
> >        Why don't these damn yanks put the
> >        steering wheel on the right side!
> >
> >Well, it is on the right side!  Anyway, the real point is, since 95 %
>
> Really? Eat shit, billions of flies can't be wrong.
> I don't care whether miliions of mediocre people due to lack of even
> something else (not necessarily better) adopt a mediocre solution. Why
> should I descend to an inferior OS? The choice of left- or
right-steering is
> an arbitrary selection in the past, it has no technical issues as you
can
> build a car either one or the other way. This does not hold for the
WPS
> vs. Win GUI. The latter is a broken concept by design, the former is a
> broken concept

...which has to be "fixed" by many of the current "dinosaur programs"
like all kinds of "Office" etc. applications: They do actually install
their own GUI. On startup they first fill the whole screen with a
chamaeleon "main window" and then open the real "documents" within that
window - as if nobody ever wanted to use any other program than just
that one... (I'm talking about the famous "Multi document interface"...)

 by the applications written by programmers who haven't
> understood the concept

...not only: The WPS is very nice for the user, but for the programmer
it has a main drawback: He better be infaillible! The point is that all
possible WPS extensions (derived WPS classes) are actually DLLs running
in one and the same address space as the WPS itself, meaning errors can
kill the whole user interface - which every OS/2 will be familiar with:
The WPS "hangs", but the FTP program goes on downloading...

(This is the reason why I did never "integrate" my own programs into the
WPS, i.e. derive my own classes, while still interacting with it a lot!)

 (and thus produced apps that logically belong
into
> the non-concept of Win). It is like a car manufacturer putting the
shift
> gear stick on the right side in a right-steered car because it's,
according
> to him, natural in almost all other parts of the world to have it on
the right-
> hand side. It is natural in Win GUIs to produce such individual and
> ill-ergonomic miracles of design in Windows (beginning with the start
button
> to shutdown the system).
>

Coming back to the subject of this "side-thread" about "ideal user
interfaces": Mine would be designed very much like the WPS, but the
different "objects" and "classes" should run in their own process
address space, interacting with pipes, shared memory and whatever. This
would add some interaction overhead of course, but I think the GUI could
be much more stable than the WPS that way! This looks like a very
deep sitting design flaw of the WPS to me that should be corrected when
building a new GUI for another OS!

Just my 2 cents...

Cornelis Bockemhl <cbockem@datacomm.ch>

(author of "PmAs - Astronomy for the Presentation Manager"
http://www.datacomm.ch/cobo)

> >of the people in the world using PCs are using Windows, and 0.025 %
> >(one-quarter of one percent) are using OS2: _________________________
> >(have fun with it!).
>
> Holger
>
> --
> If Microsoft is ever going to produce something that does not suck,
> it is very likely a vacuum cleaner.
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lucien@metrowerks.com                             18-Nov-99 13:11:18
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:08
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: lucien@metrowerks.com

In article <80vj78$atj$3@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
> Lucien writes:
> > This does not answer the question.
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't answered the questions
> contained in the two simple tests or in the more recent analogy.

Answer the question put to you:

According to your statement, under what conditions does "implements"
"....allow for either 'some' or 'all' functionality..."?

Here is your statement again:

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

Gotcha.

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           16-Nov-99 09:17:11
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:08
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <80qf8p$nq3$1@news.jump.net>, on 11/15/99 at 08:23 PM,
   "Chad Myers" <cmyers@austin.rr.com> said:

> > Under law in the United States a Corporation cannot be held criminally
> > liable for anything.  Only people can.

Oh yes they can. The company cannot be held responsible for the individual
act of an employee, but they can be found guilty for activities of the
organization.

> This is a civil trial, though. Corporations can be held liable for civil
> suits.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: veit@capri.gmd.de                                 18-Nov-99 14:09:16
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:08
Subj: Re: first look at BEOS

From: veit@capri.gmd.de (Holger Veit)

On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:59:59 GMT, cbzh@my-deja.com <cbzh@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <slrn837i1o.8bh.veit@simi.gmd.de>,
>  veit@simi.gmd.de (Holger Veit) wrote:
>> On 18 Nov 1999 07:47:39 GMT, uno@40th.com <uno@40th.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >Jean-Pierre Cabani'e? (cabanieATlep-philipsDOTfrREMOVE@nospam.org?)
>wrote (Thu
>> build a car either one or the other way. This does not hold for the
>WPS
>> vs. Win GUI. The latter is a broken concept by design, the former is a
>> broken concept by the applications written by programmers who haven't
>> understood the concept
>
>...not only: The WPS is very nice for the user, but for the programmer
>it has a main drawback: He better be infaillible! The point is that all

I do expect that he/she is! This seems to be a strange requirement
nowadays - where it has been accepted that computer crash once in a while.
The notorious comparison "if GM would produce cars the way M$ writes software"
is an indicator that still computer "science" is dilletantism par excellence,
not engineering.

>possible WPS extensions (derived WPS classes) are actually DLLs running
>in one and the same address space as the WPS itself, meaning errors can
>kill the whole user interface - which every OS/2 will be familiar with:
>The WPS "hangs", but the FTP program goes on downloading...

Then, damned, write your FTP DLL in a way that return codes are checked,
and error conditions will be trapped. Doing so is more work, admittedly.
It is not the problem of the WPS to run in the same address space, it is
pure sloppiness of coding (stemming from lousy specification). In the
medieval times, craftsmen were killed when producing inferior work; maybe
it would be a good idea to reinstall this policy today (you wouldn't
do such a job then? - okay - see where you can get your income then).

>Coming back to the subject of this "side-thread" about "ideal user
>interfaces": Mine would be designed very much like the WPS, but the
>different "objects" and "classes" should run in their own process
>address space, interacting with pipes, shared memory and whatever. This
>would add some interaction overhead of course, but I think the GUI could
>be much more stable than the WPS that way! This looks like a very
>deep sitting design flaw of the WPS to me that should be corrected when
>building a new GUI for another OS!

This misses the problem. It works around the problem of lousily written
software; but doesn't fix it. X11 has since the very beginning a client-
server concept. Unless you really trigger a bug in the server, it is almost
impossible to crash it. But you can still hang it with bad client software.
I see this constantly with Rational Rose for Solaris, using a Win emulation
library: it is really compatible to Windows: the application grabs oodles
of memory, crashes frequently, blocks the desktop, and is not compliant to
the X11 window manager conventions. I don't want to know what would happen
if it would run in a shared address space, but separate address spaces
are no excuse for not doing solid craftsmanwork.

Holger

-- 
If Microsoft is ever going to produce something that does not suck,
it is very likely a vacuum cleaner.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: GMD-AiS (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mike@lionsgate.com                                18-Nov-99 15:11:02
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: first look at BEOS

From: mike@lionsgate.com

In article <810t8e$l38$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  cbzh@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <slrn837i1o.8bh.veit@simi.gmd.de>,
>   veit@simi.gmd.de (Holger Veit) wrote:
> > On 18 Nov 1999 07:47:39 GMT, uno@40th.com <uno@40th.com>
wrote:
> > >
> > >Jean-Pierre Cabani'e?
(cabanieATlep-philipsDOTfrREMOVE@nospam.org?)
> wrote (Thu
> > >>Deliver an UI modeled after the OS/2 WPS. Achieving a
WinSomething
> clone will
> > >>be a failure.
> > >
> > >That's like an Englishman coming to the states and saying,
> > >
> > >        Why don't these damn yanks put the
> > >        steering wheel on the right side!
> > >
> > >Well, it is on the right side!  Anyway, the real point is,
since 95 %
> >
> > Really? Eat shit, billions of flies can't be wrong.
> > I don't care whether miliions of mediocre people due to lack
of even
> > something else (not necessarily better) adopt a mediocre
solution. Why
> > should I descend to an inferior OS? The choice of left- or
> right-steering is
> > an arbitrary selection in the past, it has no technical
issues as you
> can
> > build a car either one or the other way. This does not hold
for the
> WPS
> > vs. Win GUI. The latter is a broken concept by design, the
former is a
> > broken concept
>
> ...which has to be "fixed" by many of the current "dinosaur
programs"
> like all kinds of "Office" etc. applications: They do actually
install
> their own GUI. On startup they first fill the whole screen
with a
> chamaeleon "main window" and then open the real "documents"
within that
> window - as if nobody ever wanted to use any other program
than just
> that one... (I'm talking about the famous "Multi document
interface"...)
>
>  by the applications written by programmers who haven't
> > understood the concept
>
> ...not only: The WPS is very nice for the user, but for the
programmer
> it has a main drawback: He better be infaillible! The point is
that all
> possible WPS extensions (derived WPS classes) are actually
DLLs running
> in one and the same address space as the WPS itself, meaning
errors can
> kill the whole user interface - which every OS/2 will be
familiar with:
> The WPS "hangs", but the FTP program goes on downloading...
>
> (This is the reason why I did never "integrate" my own
programs into the
> WPS, i.e. derive my own classes, while still interacting with
it a lot!)
>
>  (and thus produced apps that logically belong
> into
> > the non-concept of Win). It is like a car manufacturer
putting the
> shift
> > gear stick on the right side in a right-steered car because
it's,
> according
> > to him, natural in almost all other parts of the world to
have it on
> the right-
> > hand side. It is natural in Win GUIs to produce such
individual and
> > ill-ergonomic miracles of design in Windows (beginning with
the start
> button
> > to shutdown the system).
> >
>
> Coming back to the subject of this "side-thread" about "ideal
user
> interfaces": Mine would be designed very much like the WPS,
but the
> different "objects" and "classes" should run in their own
process
> address space, interacting with pipes, shared memory and
whatever. This
> would add some interaction overhead of course, but I think the
GUI could
> be much more stable than the WPS that way! This looks like a
very
> deep sitting design flaw of the WPS to me that should be
corrected when
> building a new GUI for another OS!
>
> Just my 2 cents...
>
> Cornelis Bockemhl <cbockem@datacomm.ch>

You aced it!  The WPS does indeed need improvment as you
suggested.  I really do wish other developers would look at the
WPS and understand how it works.  We should be able to get the
SOM and DSOM code from IBM.  If I remember correctly the code
was offered to the Corba group....

It really dosen't fit the unix type market though....  I will
have to give some thought to that so that I might come up with a
method of linking the objects with the files ala some sort of
extended attributes.  Hopfully better than the FAT file type of
EADATA that Warp had for filesystems other than HPFS and TVS and
HPFS386.

The other main feature of Warp in my opinion is the fluid
multitasking it offers.  The scheduler is far ahead of all the
unixes I have played with and blows away all the Windows
versions I have used.  This is much harder than the WPS add on.
I think it is not even possible to offer the kind of responce
Warp has on any other platform.  All the others appear to me to
seem rather slow and clunky when using more than 5-7
applications.

This is a big differance from the Windows style...  Windows
gives a massive CPU advantage to the foreground application.
This makes the user think that the os is running quickly.  For
most people this is true, since they only run one app at a time.

OS/2 on the other hand, gives all apps a shot at the cpu.  Even
a low idle priority task gets raised up the priority ladder unti
it gets a cpu hit.  this comromise style of Warp allows all
tasks to run in a much smoother manner.  In the Windows world
you cannot rely on a background task to continue running
properly if it requires constant updating. In those cases where
it does happen in windows, the author of the program usually
gives the app all the priority he/she deems it to require. In
all cases to the detriment of all other applications running.
In the OS/2 world the operating system makes sure the app gets
the cpu it needs.

Anyhow I appreciate your responces regarding improving the WPS.
Perhaps we can talk some of the developers of the BEOS to look
into it?


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               18-Nov-99 10:26:07
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Mike Timbol writes:
> 
> > Yet, when taking a paragraph out of the article in which it appears,
> > the context of the paragraph is lost.
> 
> Prove it, if you think you can, Mike.

No need.  It's being shown clear as day below:

> >>> In fact, you consider the context "irrelevent".  That's because it
> >>> shows that you're completely wrong.
> 
> >> Balderdash, Mike.  Your own text clearly shows you referring to
> >> classes.zip, thus you're the one who is completely wrong.
> 
> > Not at all.
> 
> Balderdash, Mike:
> 
> MT] classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed

Note that the above snippet was taken out of the context of the
paragraph in which it resides.  Here is the above snippet placed back in
context:

MT] classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
MT] so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.

Notice how statistics on its compression ratio are given.  Also notice
that classes.zip has no compression internal to itself as I have
demonstrated in the past and anyone with said file can easily verify. 
Therefore, the only context in which one can examine classes.zip and
refer to it as being compressed is in the context of the file residing
within JAVAINUF.EXE.  Notice how Dave conveniently left this piece of
information out when he quoted Mike.  How dishonest, but that's par for
the course for Tholen.  Notice also that Tholen has failed to address
this issue after the numerous times I've presented it to him and instead
hides behind his baseless accusations of playing an infantile game or
his Eliza non-responses.  I guess he just doesn't have the courage to
admit he is wrong yet again.  No surprise there.

> > My own text clearly shows that "the file" refers to javainuf.exe.
> 
> Balderdash, Mike:
> 
> MT] classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed

MT] classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
MT] so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.
 
> Amazing how you think you can get away with your lies, Mike.

Amazing how Dave thinks he's fooling anyone.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: clasqm@mweb.co.za                                 18-Nov-99 15:39:02
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: clasqm@mweb.co.za (Michel Clasquin)

On Wed, 17 Nov 1999 23:17:45 -0600, DC <dc@pdq.net> wrote:

>>your system. I only have a humble AMDK6 200 with 64M RAM, and my
>>graphics card is just barely supported, but I can  run 4 or 5 AVI's
>>and Quicktimes with no perceptible slowdown - and that's from CDROM.
>>When I push it up to eight, they start running slower, but don't skip
>>any frames that I can see. Windows chokes solid on just 2.
>
>Interesting.  Given the massive contention that occurs when multiple
>resources hit a CDROM at the same time, I have to wonder how you
>manage to do this. 
>
To be quite honest with you , it surprised me too, but I did exactly
that last week. The actual videos i used were from the Win95 CD - you
remember, the Rob Roy trailer, the clip from Happy Days etc. And then
I added some of Be's own videos.

The CDROM is a Samsung IDE 32x, if that will make a difference.

I don't ask how - I just observe and genuflect towards Cupertino. <g>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jjens@primenet.com                                18-Nov-99 15:55:19
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: John Jensen <jjens@primenet.com>

Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote:
: On <80qf8p$nq3$1@news.jump.net>, on 11/15/99 at 08:23 PM,
:    "Chad Myers" <cmyers@austin.rr.com> said:

: > > Under law in the United States a Corporation cannot be held criminally
: > > liable for anything.  Only people can.

The roots of the word "corporation" are the same as the workd "corpse".
'Incorporation' is the process of making a legal entitiy very much like a
person.

: Oh yes they can. The company cannot be held responsible for the individual
: act of an employee, but they can be found guilty for activities of the
: organization.

Yup.

John

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Primenet (602)416-7000 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov                          18-Nov-99 10:57:24
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: first look at BEOS

From: Bennie Nelson <b.l.nelson@larc.nasa.gov>

"uno@40th.com" wrote:
> 
> Holger Veit? (veit@simi.gmd.de?) wrote (18 Nov 1999 11:00:28 GMT):
> > You simply>lack imagination.
> 
> I don't have the time to waste going down a dead-end road.
> That's all there is to it.  Disagree all you want, but what
> could barely be called a road has run out.
> 
> >The opera ain't over till the fat lady sings. Haven't heard her yet.
> 
> The end has come and gone, Holger -- you missed the end.
> Didn't you notice that -everybody- has left?

Then why are you still here?  If "everybody" has left, then nobody
is still here.  The fact that you are here to tell us that everyone
has left is proof that everyone has NOT left.  Your presence here
belies your own words.

What is it about former OS/2 zealots that keeps them coming here and
posting such flawed and cliched material?

Uno, you've made your choice.  I'm not going along with your choice.
I'm sticking with what I have because it works and because it's better
than anything else out there.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, USA (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               18-Nov-99 11:12:25
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> > so you are reduced to mimicking my responses.
> 
> On the contrary, you were mimicking my responses, Curtis.

How embarrassing.

> What alleged "fantasy", Curtis.
> And I have been applying logic, Curtis.

That answers that question.

> > I already know your vacuous response, but go ahead and repeat it anyway.
> What's allegedly "vacuous" about my response, Curtis?

How embarrassing.
 
> How ironic, coming from somebody "hiding" behind the logic of his "inept"
claim.

"Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
on an OS/2 system to boot!"

> See above for the evidence, Curtis.

Indeed.

> You jumped to an erroneous conclusion,

"Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
on an OS/2 system to boot!"

> > I used the tools I had, to the best of my ability.
> 
> So did I, Curtis.  Yet you called me "inept".

"Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
on an OS/2 system to boot!"
 
> Are you Burger King, Curtis?
> What alleged "fantasy", Curtis?

Apparently Dave wants Curtis to have it his way.

> Hiding the evidence for your irrelevant remarks, I see.  I'm not
> surprised.

"You didn't try it on my copy of the file, Curtis."

> > I hereby claim victory.
> 
> Typical pontification.  I could just as easily claim victory on the
> basis of your deletion tactic, Curtis.

"I am deleting all but the most recent new text."

> How would you expect me to justify an answer either way?
> I know enough of the facts to justify applying your reasoning to his
> situation, Curtis.

Does Dave enjoy talking to himself and answering his own questions?
 
> How ironic, coming from the person who "shot off his mouth" making a
personal 
> attack rather than sticking to the issue.

DT] That's IBM's problem, Marty.
M ] They don't seem to think so.
DT] Maybe their standards are set too low, Marty.

> > Lame excuses about "not neededing to run it" because you "already had a
> > Java environment set up" are just that, lame excuses.
> 
> What's allegedly "lame" about it, Curtis?  Just because you say so?
> That's called pontification.

"Yet to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and
on an OS/2 system to boot!"

> > What evidence have I allegedly ignored, Curtis?
> 
> Now why would you ask yourself a question in a response to me, Curtis?

How embarrassing.
 
> > The aforementioned JPEG.
> 
> It didn't utilize my copy of the file, Curtis.  That made it irrelevant.

"How ironic, coming from somebody 'hiding' behind the logic of his
'inept' claim."

> > What is a "maneuvar" Dave?
> 
> Don't you know, Curtis?  You're the one who brought it up.

DT] On the contrary, Curtis, it's not an evasive maneuvar at all.

"I could just as easily claim victory on the basis of your deletion
tactic, Curtis."
 
> How ironic, coming from the person who resorted to a personal attack
> and stayed away from the issue because of ignorance!

DT] That's IBM's problem, Marty.
M ] They don't seem to think so.
DT] Maybe their standards are set too low, Marty.

[Context restored]:
> > > Furthermore, you "supported" the claim with hastily produced
> > > "evidence" that WinZip was superior to InfoZip as an unzipper.

> > It *IS* superior Dave.
> > Have you ever tried to use InfoZip to unzip a multi-part archive?
> 
> Irrelevant, given that javainuf.exe is not a multi-part archive,
> Curtis.

Too bad javainuf.exe has nothing to do with WinZip being superior to
InfoZip.
 
> > WinZip 7.0 can handle multi-part archives without any problem.
> 
> Irrelevant, given that javainuf.exe is not a multi-part archive,
> Curtis.
> 
> > What "initial erroneous conclusion" are you talking about, Dave?
> 
> That I am allegedly "inept", Curtis.

Further evidence is not needed.
 
> How ironic, coming from the person who "refuses" to comprehend how he
> burning himself more each time he responds with his personal attacks.

DT] That's IBM's problem, Marty.
M ] They don't seem to think so.
DT] Maybe their standards are set too low, Marty.

DT] Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".
DT] Or are you really that idiotic?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lars-news@bearnip.com                             18-Nov-99 16:23:00
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: lars-news@bearnip.com (Lars Duening)

On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:55:19 GMT, znu@znu.dhs.org (ZnU) wrote:

>Wonder if Mac OS X will be able to do this. Probably. It is a real-time OS
>(I don't know why Apple doesn't hype that point more).

How fast is MacOS X? 

An OS with a guaranteed reaction time of 1 second is also a real-time
OS - just not a very useful one (unless you're remote-controlling
probes on far-away planets).
-- 
Lars Duening; lars@bearnip.com
(Currently I can check my mail only occasionally)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Federation of Independant Wizards (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          18-Nov-99 17:25:25
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Ian "The Moron" Tholen
>I presume some readers do recognize the
>essential difference between us.

Yes, you're a foolish, hypocritical, lying, common-sense-lacking,
pedantic-to-the-point-of-idiocy moron and megalomaniac whose behavior
online is so mentally disturbed that he was elected Kook of the
Month... and Curtis is not.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          18-Nov-99 17:39:15
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>Marty
>Amazing how Dave thinks he's fooling anyone.

Give him *some* credit, Marty. He HAS fooled Karel and Bennie, neither
of whom seems to have the technical background to follow Mike's
discussion, and both of whom seem to be easily "impressed" by Tholen's
"logic" to the point of attempting to help "explain" Tholen's idiocy
-- as if anyone with even minimal intelligence would NOT see the
idiocy in Tholen's posts.

But then, we're talking about Karel "Tholen is a nice guy" J and
Bennie "Tholen's detractors are unskilled at logic and emotionally
blocked" Nelson

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com                             18-Nov-99 17:41:20
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com

In article <80s5ad$8vp$1@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net>,
  timbol@netcom.com (Mike Timbol) wrote:

-- snip --

> Amusingly, here you are trying to claim that the subject of *my*
> sentence is what *you* misinterpreted it to be.  Tsk, tsk.
>
>      - Mike

That's a classic Tholen strategy, Mike. He misinterprets what his
adversary says, and insist that his misinterpretation is the correct
interpretation, regardless of his your adversary says the correct
interpretation is.

Classic.


Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com                             18-Nov-99 17:36:27
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com

In article <80rcaq$3ot$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
> Mike Timbol writes:

-- snip --

> > and what I wrote is that I can read the file in question, which is
> > javainuf.exe.
>
> Illogical, Mike.  You wrote "I was able to read the file" and then
> went on to reference what you read "The first file in classes.zip".
> Remember, you were referring to classes.zip long before you ever
> mentioned javainuf.exe; I had to coax that top-level filename out
> of you.

Classic Tholen: Misinterpret what your opponent says and insist that
your misinterpretation is the correct interpretation, because it's the
"logical" one, based on your own twisted brand of "logic."

-- snip --


Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com                             18-Nov-99 17:55:00
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com

In article <80rcaq$3ot$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
> Mike Timbol writes:

-- snip --

> > and what I wrote is that I can read the file in question, which is
> > javainuf.exe.
>
> Illogical, Mike.  You wrote "I was able to read the file" and then
> went on to reference what you read "The first file in classes.zip".

Wrong. Mike wrote "I was able to read the file" and then changed his
point of reference by stating the file name explicitly; until now it was
implicit ("the file" referred to JAVAINMUF.EXE, but "classes.zip"
changed the point of reference to "classes.zip")

Of course, you will disagree, and voice said disagreement. You have no
choice but to do so. Your megalomania prevents you from a) admitting
mistakes in an adversarial exchange, and b) walking away while your only
a little bit behind.

-- snip --


Curtis



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com                             18-Nov-99 17:47:16
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com

In article <38341A96.5E283498@stny.rr.com>,
  Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:

-- snip --

> Notice how statistics on its compression ratio are given.  Also notice
> that classes.zip has no compression internal to itself as I have
> demonstrated in the past and anyone with said file can easily verify.
> Therefore, the only context in which one can examine classes.zip and
> refer to it as being compressed is in the context of the file residing
> within JAVAINUF.EXE.  Notice how Dave conveniently left this piece of
> information out when he quoted Mike.  How dishonest, but that's par
> for the course for Tholen.  Notice also that Tholen has failed to
> address this issue after the numerous times I've presented it to him
> and instead hides behind his baseless accusations of playing an
> infantile game or his Eliza non-responses.  I guess he just doesn't
> have the courage to admit he is wrong yet again.  No surprise there.

This analysis nails Dave's apparent dishonesty and his apparent lack of
courage quite effectively.  Of course, Dave will disagree.

-- snip --

> Amazing how Dave thinks he's fooling anyone.

Well, he appears to be fooling himself quite effectively.


Curtis


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: Fam.Traeger@t-online.de                           18-Nov-99 19:35:19
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Fam.Traeger@t-online.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)

Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> wrote:

> Illya Vaes wrote:
> > 
> > Marty wrote:
> > >>Murderers and other criminals aren't _punished_ to prevent another
murder
> > >>(crime) but are _punished_ to pay for the wrong they have done.
> > >Murderers and criminals are not corporations with thousands of employees
> > >whose livelihood depends on holding down a job.
> > 
> > The corporation that is (going to) be(ing) punished here and its employees
> > sure didn't have any problems with killing other companies, whose
employees'
> > livelihood also depended on holding down a job.
> > The quote "cut those fuckers off" (by an MS executive) comes to mind,
> > again. They deliberately set out to get the others out of business and
> > therefore its employees unemployed.
> > I think MS fully deserves to get now what they dished out in spades.
> 
> So the janitors and window cleaners and software engineers who were just
> doing their respective jobs should now lose their jobs so that "MS" can
> be punished?  These are the people that would be the first to go. 
> Cutbacks typically occur at the lowest levels.  Is this fair and just in
> your mind?  The window cleaner never made anyone lose their job. 
> Neither did the grunt software guys who were just doing what their
> managers told them to do.

Do you really think that MS would need less window cleaners, janitors
etc. than they do now? Will they just keep on working in a dirty
building because they had to pay some fine? Will they need less people
to write their (crappy) software? If yes, why? Will those who write
competing software not need programmers? Are those who write crappy
software really innocent, or would they be not kicked out for that by
other companies?
 
> > >The court must have some regard for the employees and families of the
> > >corporation in question.  If they significantly and radically harm the
> > >corporation many innocent employees will suffer unjustly.
> > 
> > Rubbish. That was supposed to be the concern of those employees (ie. don't
> > work for a company that does things that might get it punished) and the
> > company itself (ie. it's irresponsible against your own people to do such
> > things).
> 
> Most employees that actually make things happen (ie. write software,
> etc.) have little part in the decision making process.  Why should they
> be punished for the attitudes and actions of their high-level
> management?
> 
> > You're saying that a drugs cartel shouldn't be taken out of business
because
> > it makes a lot of people lose their income...
> 
> A drug cartel is not an incorporated business.

I'm sure that pahrmaceutical companies were fined or even closed for
producing illegal substances. Even if there are non - what about the
tobbaco industry?

> > How many of Al Capone's people (which must have included a lot of
> > legally employed people) have lost their jobs when he was nailed? Should
> > he not have been nailed? But as usual, the "government" must be blamed
> > for everything, and maybe some others, but sure don't blame Microsoft
> > itself for the shit they put the industry and their own people in.
> > Grow up.
> 
> Look... I'm the first guy to come down on Microsoft for their actions
> and the quality of their software, but causing innocent people to suffer
> just doesn't make sense.  What is accomplished in executing wrath upon
> Microsoft?  What we should all be concerned about is how to prevent such
> a thing from happening in the future, *by any company*, not just
> Microsoft.
> 
<snip>
> > Ah, so MS can kill all the companies it wants and make all the people
> > unemployed it wants if it makes a buck, but the "government" cannot do
> > anything to uphold the law and/or punish MS for breaking it "because
> > people's livelihoods depends on their jobs". Yeah, right.
> 
> If the government had a problem with their actions, it should have acted
> immediately.  The fact that it had to "find a fact" to now start

Duh. There are laws against that.

> applying laws to Microsoft demonstrates that the government had no
> problem with what MS was doing in the past.

There was this consent decree, and a couple of cases where MS usually
settled out of court. It didn't work.

<snip>
> > >>Competing fairly from now on (who, MS??? A snowball's chance in hell) is
> > >>completely irrelevant, the past conduct is to be addressed.
> > >If so, then it will have profoundly negative effects with little or no
> > >positive effects. Trying to undo the damage Microsoft has done will be
like
> > >trying to un-pee in a pool.

Most court cases are about damages that can not be undone - even with
vast amounts of money often given.

> > ... or like trying to un-kill someone. Doesn't stop the US from killing
> > people that have been found guilty of murder. It's the eternal problem
> > of judicial systems; little comes of the punishment itself, except
> > 1) punish wrongdoing
> > 2) provide some ethical justice to the victims (and there are plenty here)
> > 3) deterring others doing the same
> > 4) deterring continued illegal conduct
> 
> Yes, but in the case of murder, the only person punished is the
> murderer.  In the case of Microsoft, many people will be punished for
> the transgressions of the few.  This is not just.

You do *not* have to kill anyone *yourself* to (legaly) be a "murderer".

> > Microsoft has shown again and again that they will not stop their conduct
> > willingly until they are forced to; so they effectively said "do it to us
or
> > stuff your laws". The latter is unacceptable for any country with a
judicial
> > system worth a bean, so they left no other option than "do it to us".
> > People losing their jobs should complain to Gates, Ballmer, Silverberg,
> > Maples, etc.
> 
> "Do it to us" should mean "stop this from happening again," not "hurt
> us".  They can be handcuffed without being handcuffed and beaten.

The courts tried "not hurting" MS - it didn't work. Most sentences hurt
because they wouldn't work if they didn't.

> > Not punishing them now gives them the go-ahead on everything they feel is
> > desirable and literally places them above the law. That would only be the
> > start of "the damage MS has done"...
> 
> Punishing them doesn't prevent them from doing their damage again,
> unless the punishment is so severe as to shut them down altogether. 
> Preventing them from holding monopoly power must be the focus of the
> court.

Make it short: Should MS be
[ ] left alone
[ ] broken up
[ ] heavily fined
[ ] something else, namely ................

> > If you don't want MS to be punished after having been found guilty, you
just
> > don't want a judicial system. It's that simple.
> 
> Perhaps I just have more sympathy for working class folks.  If it were
> my job on the line, this angry mob style of justice would prompt me to
> countersue the government.

Do you really think there is *anybody* working for MS who does not know
about its business practices? Hell, they should sue *Microsoft* and the
responsible executives (incl. Gates) for putting their job in danger,
and so should all the shareholders.

Lars T. 

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Zuse ruleZ (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: Fam.Traeger@t-online.de                           18-Nov-99 19:35:16
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Fam.Traeger@t-online.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)

Peter Nelson <plnelson@mediaone.net> wrote:

> 
> It's not fair to punish microsoft because its competitors are
> incompetent.

MS is punished because they did illegal things.

But you bring up a point:

Microsoft's competitors are incompetent -> MS should win.
MS gets greedy -> they get punished -> they are incompetent.

Shareholders should sue Microsoft.

Lars T.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Zuse ruleZ (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: Fam.Traeger@t-online.de                           18-Nov-99 19:35:16
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows... 

From: Fam.Traeger@t-online.de (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Lars_Tr=E4ger?=)

David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com> wrote:

> nhughes@scenedesign.com says...
> >On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 17:30:23 -0500, David H. McCoy
> ><forgitaboutit@fake.com> wrote:
> >
> >>nhughes@scenedesign.com says...
> >>>Perhaps the best thing the DOJ can do to break the M$ "monopoly" would
> >>>be to require ALL programmers who write for Win32 to also write a
> >>>native BeOS version of their application.   Of course, what would
> >>>really break the M$ "monopoly" would be for Gates to sell of his
> >>>interest in M$ and purchase Be.
> >>>
> >>
> >>You think that telling people how to do their jobs would be best. Why
> >>don't YOU
> >
> >Not me, the goverment.  
> 
> I don't recall reading anything about the government wanting to force
> programmers to write for platforms against the programmers' will. That
appears
> to be your terrible idea.
<snip>

Whooh, I love it when the Wintrolls bash each other ;-)

Lars T.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Zuse ruleZ (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bbarclay@ca.ibm.com                               18-Nov-99 14:01:21
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES 

From: Brad BARCLAY <bbarclay@ca.ibm.com>

Jack Troughton wrote:
> Hi Joe... that particular little line didn't work on Infoworld, and it
> won't work here.
> 
> Nice try, but no cigar.
> 
> NB: Otherwise known as jake123 on Infoworld's forums.  Would you like
> me to drop by there tomorrow and let the regulars know that you're
> fudding in os2.advocacy?  I'm sure that Yaz etc would be quite happy
> to spank you again in here.

	Don't worry - Yaz sees all and knows all :).
 
> BTW- they ordered 300,000 copies... just how many desktops do you
> think IBM has, anyway?  It wouldn't surprise me to discover that it
> was in the million range...

	IBM also has licenses for Solaris, HP-UX, MacOS, and many other OS's. 
Of course, IBM also runs all of it's own OS's in various capacities -
OS/2, AIX, OS/390, MVS, etc. - and uses Linux in a variety of capacities
as well.  And yes, alot of people use Windows.

	IBM is a very complex company.  IBM is a technology company, and in
general the platform doesn't really matter.  IBM uses everything from
NC's to mainframes.  And unlike many other companies, we develop
software for *all* of these platforms, and everything in-between.

Brad BARCLAY

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  bbarclay@ca.ibm.com		Location:  2G43D@Torolabs
This office is 100% Microsoft-free :)

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: marcone@xs4.xs4all.nl                             18-Nov-99 19:33:06
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: Marco Nelissen <marcone@xs4.xs4all.nl>

In comp.sys.be.advocacy DC <dc@pdq.net> wrote:
> Interesting.  Given the massive contention that occurs when multiple
> resources hit a CDROM at the same time, I have to wonder how you
> manage to do this. 

Probably the same way I can play 7 audio tracks from the same audio
CD at the same time: smart buffering.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: XS4ALL Internet BV (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: float@incandescent.firedrake.org                  18-Nov-99 19:23:22
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: float@incandescent.firedrake.org (void)

In article <1e1a7cr.13pmcty1f68x4qN%Fam.Traeger@t-online.de>, Lars Trger
wrote:
>
>Do you really think that MS would need less window cleaners, janitors
>etc. than they do now? Will they just keep on working in a dirty
>building because they had to pay some fine? Will they need less people
>to write their (crappy) software? If yes, why? Will those who write
>competing software not need programmers?

I have asked Marty all of these questions repeatedly, which is why he no
longer responds to my posts -- he has no answers.  He is, in short, a troll.

-- 
 Ben

[X] YES! I'm a brain-damaged lemur on crack, and I'd like to
    order your software package for $459.95!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Firedrake Synthesis (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org                      18-Nov-99 12:22:15
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org>

Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote in message
news:383168d3$5$obot$mr2ice@news.pics.com...
> On <80qf8p$nq3$1@news.jump.net>, on 11/15/99 at 08:23 PM,
>    "Chad Myers" <cmyers@austin.rr.com> said:
>
> > > Under law in the United States a Corporation cannot be held criminally
> > > liable for anything.  Only people can.
>
> Oh yes they can. The company cannot be held responsible for the individual
> act of an employee, but they can be found guilty for activities of the
> organization.
>

1. I said that no Chad Myers.

2. Not true, a corporation can be fined for violations of regulations but
the entity cannot be held for voilations of law.


> > This is a civil trial, though. Corporations can be held liable for civil
> > suits.
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
> MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
> Aut Pax Aut Bellum
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CampusCWIX (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cmyers@austin.rr.com                              18-Nov-99 14:39:23
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:09
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Chad Myers" <cmyers@austin.rr.com>

"Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> wrote in message
news:811n20$gtj$1@news.campuscwix.net...
>
> >
>
> 1. I said that no Chad Myers.
>
> 2. Not true, a corporation can be fined for violations of regulations but
> the entity cannot be held for voilations of law.
>
>
> > > This is a civil trial, though. Corporations can be held liable for civil
> > > suits.

I wasn't debating about criminal suits, because I don't know about that.
I was simply saying that it's irrelevant because the MS case is a
civil trial, not a criminal trial.

In the case of a Civil trial, at least, a regular corporation (schedule S,
I think it's called), the corporation, itself, is an individual that will
stand trial in civil matters and take the hit for creditors and debtors
should fines or judgements be levied against the corporation. It abstracts
individuals so that no one person's personal property can be levied.

Chad


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Jump.Net (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: drsmithy@usa.net                                  19-Nov-99 07:23:00
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:10
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: "Christopher Smith" <drsmithy@usa.net>

"Mike Stephen" <mike@lionsgate.com> wrote in message
news:8NSY3.20$EN1.38800@news.bctel.net...
> In message <sdIzOBlEE6Aojmy+ALnAlrxatedl@4ax.com> - Hobbyist
> :>He's one of those OS/2 advocates that's expects another OS/2 WPS out
> :>of another OS. If he doesn't get this, then it's crap and a total
> :>disappointment. The refute to this would be that OS/2 has made them
> :>expectant of high standards and intolerant of mediocrity. I say
> :>they're inflexible and almost obsessed in the main (this is a
> :>generalisation please).
>
> Obsessed?  All I want is an operating system that at least meets my
> needs.  Windows certainly doesn't, and I was hoping BEOS did.  It
> doesn't either.  I do wish someone out there would adapt the SOM/DSOM
> model and incorporate it into a GUI like the WPS.  I do not need it to
> look like the WPS, just act like it.  At least I consider BEOS a lot
> better than Windows NT.  However it still is no match for Warp OS/2.
> I can demonstrate it any time for anyone who wishes.  Just send me a
> note when you are in Vancouver.  I have both operating systems
> installed and can demontrate those same two mpg files in both BEOS and
> OS/2.  You can decide which operating system can handle the two MPGS
> better.

Yet my NT box seems to be able to play (counts) seven 320x240 clips
simultaneously without dropping any frames.

I switched from OS/2 to NT4 in February of '96.  I noticed no speed
difference.  I still think WPS is a better interface, but I find Explorer
just as useful.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Queensland (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@hamilton.edu                              18-Nov-99 16:57:19
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:10
Subj: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451501^-999999999

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@hamilton.edu>

Tholen's still at his infantile game.  Here everything of value Tholen has
ever written:

[null, void, and codswallop]

Thanks for reading your guide to instant Tholen!



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         19-Nov-99 00:40:21
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:10
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>> This does not answer the question.

>> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't answered the questions
>> contained in the two simple tests or in the more recent analogy.

> Answer the question put to you:

Take the two simple tests, Lucien.  Answer the question put to you:

] In the absence of clouds, you would not expect it to rain.  Now, how
] does such a statement apply to the weather here in Hawaii, Lucien?
] Hint:  we have the presence of clouds.

> According to your statement, under what conditions does "implements"
> "....allow for either 'some' or 'all' functionality..."?

Perhaps you'd like to tell me how the statement you keep pointing to
applies to the JDK sentence, Lucien.

> Here is your statement again:

I don't need it again, Lucien, but I do find it ironic that you would
delete text to alter the context.

> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

And how does that concern the JDK sentence, Lucien, as you've repeatedly
insisted?

> Gotcha.

Obviously not, Lucien.

And now for the two simple tests again:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Meanwhile, I noticed that you failed to answer my little test,
Lucien:

] #1:  It rained today.                                              
]                                                                    
] #2:  It rained today until sunset.                                 
]                                                                    
] The question:  did it rain all of the day or only some of the day? 
]                                                                    
] The word "rained", by itself, doesn't indicate duration, therefore 
] one cannot determine an unambiguous answer to the question in the  
] absence of other information.  Yet I will claim that the answer to 
] the question is in fact unambiguous in the case of statement #2.   
]                                                                    
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.                                    

Test grade:  F.

Here's another little test for you, Lucien:

] #3:  It did rain today.
] 
] #4:  It didn't rain today.
] 
] The question:  what fraction of the day did it rain?
] 
] Structurally, the two statements are identical, yet there is nothing
] in statement #3 that allows the question to be answered unambiguously,
] while there is something in statement #4 that does allow the question
] to be answered unambigiously.
] 
] Try to prove otherwise, Lucien.

Test grade:  F.

Perhaps readers will notice how 3-4 corresponds to the "prevent costly
mistakes" thread, where the quantification is provided by the definition
of a word and not the structure.  Perhaps readers will notice how 1-2
corresponds to the "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" thread,
where the additional information resolves what would otherwise be
ambiguous.

Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".   
Or are you really that idiotic?                                    

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         19-Nov-99 00:43:09
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:10
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

[nothing new]

Well, for once you didn't delete the two simple tests.  Unfortunately,
you didn't respond to them either.  Indeed, you didn't respond to
anything.  You simply reposted the article.  Why bother, Lucien?  Just
to claim that you haven't simply deleted the two simple tests every
single time?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         19-Nov-99 00:38:08
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:10
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:

CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so inclined.

I am deleting all but the most recent new text.

Curtis Bass writes:

> Wrong.

Balderdash, Curtis.

> Mike wrote "I was able to read the file" and then changed his point
> of reference by stating the file name explicitly;

That explicitly named file happens to be classes.zip, Curtis.  And if
you go back to the early stages of the thread, you'll see Mike going
on about the contents of the JDK, as contained in classes.zip, long
before he made any mention of javainuf.exe, Curtis.

> until now it was implicit ("the file" referred to JAVAINMUF.EXE, but
> "classes.zip" changed the point of reference to "classes.zip")

On what basis do you call it a change, Curtis?  Notice how you had to
rely on your own inference of javainuf.exe, whereas there can be no
question regarding the reference to classes.zip, because it is explicit.

> Of course, you will disagree, and voice said disagreement.

With good reason, Curtis.

> You have no choice but to do so.

On the contrary, I could choose to do something stupid, like what you're
doing.

> Your megalomania prevents you from a) admitting mistakes in an
> adversarial exchange,

Typical invective.  Your lack of a logical argument prevents you from
responding with anything other than personal attacks.

> and b) walking away while your only a little bit behind.

You're erroneously presupposing that I'm behind at all, Curtis.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               18-Nov-99 19:26:07
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:10
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> 
> In article <38336A8A.4D05F5C2@stny.rr.com>, mamodeo@stny.rr.com says...
> "David H. McCoy" wrote:
> 
> >> >> Of course, you are the person claiming that Partition Magic takes 100
megs. Why
> >> >> should anyone believe you?
> >>
> >> >Touche' John Ominar.  And you claimed 3Dfx cards weren't supported under 
OS/2.
> >>
> >> They aren't. You have to buy Scitech, and even then you cannot use the
full
> >> features of the card. At best, if you spend another $40 on top of the
card,
> >> you get a partially supported 3dfx card.
> >>
> >> Please try to be accurate.
> 
> >Speaking of being accurate, IBM licensed SDD so that OS/2 users can use a
base
> >version for free.  The base version contains all of the drivers.
> 
> Which isn't available yet and still doesn't fully support the card.
> Be accurate.

The entire product is still in beta and has a free trial for 21 days.  When
the
beta period is over, the base product will be available for free.  No purchase
necessary at any stage of the game.  The issue of "full support" (meaning the
3D accelerated aspects) is being addressed by Scitech.
 
> >> >> >Yes and no.  NT has X emulators and much of the *nix stuff has been
ported.
> >> >> >OS/2 has X servers and most *nix stuff has been ported.
> >> >>
> >> >> What Unix program is available on OS/2 and not NT?  Prove what you say 
instead
> >> >> of just declaring it.
> >>
> >> >Enlightenment.  XF86 itself.  Gimp (it was barely ported to Win32 as I
> >> >understand).  If I used more *nix apps, I'd name more.
> >>
> >> That's it. Three is NOT most.
> 
> >Sorry, but I don't have personal experience with "most" and hence "most"
are
> >not on the tip of my tongue.  Needless to say, more *nix apps have been
ported
> >to OS/2 than Win32.
> 
> You have yet to prove this. You've giving up three examples.

You only asked for one:
"What Unix program is available on OS/2 and not NT?"

> An inferior shell,

Which one would that be?

> Gimp(which has a Win32 version)

Which isn't stable in Win32, but is perfectly usable in OS/2.

> and Xfree/86, something that has several Windows equivalents.

We'll tackle this below...
 
> >> You ever stop to think that the reason XFree/86 was supported is because
there
> >> are multiple X-window servers for Windows,
> 
> >Name one X *SERVER*
> 
> I'll name several X-WinPro, SuperX, MI/X, tell you what, look here 
> http://www.rahul.net/kenton/xsites.html#XMicrosoft and then get back to me.

After examining several of these sites, I can say that the above mentioned
products are a far cry from XF86/2.  These products operate in one of two
modes:
1] 100% remote, where the window manager and all applications run on another
box and their displays are exported to your PC
2] 75% remote, where the window manager runs locally, caching bitmaps and
speeding up data transfer through clever caching, but the applications still
run remotely.

In point of fact (admittedly without examining every lead off of every article
on the web page you mentioned) I would say that there are no native Win32 apps
that can run in these X server sessions the way EMX X applications can run
natively in XF86/2.  Is this true to your experience or have I got it all
wrong?

> >> and as for Gimp, forget about it. There are what ten graphic packages?
More?
> 
> >That's not the point, seeing as how you asked about Unix programs.
> 
> And you named ONE that has a Win32 version. Keep trying.

An unusable Win32 version.

> >> Besides Linux and OS/2, two OSses desperate for graphics, but as you say,
> >> Gimp is available, but not stable for Windows.
> 
> >Hence under Windows, it is useless.  Under OS/2, this is not the case.
> 
> Certainly is unless you install X/Free86. Works natively under Windows.

The X version works natively in OS/2.  I've also heard of people running it
under PMX and eXceed.

> >> That leaves Enlightenment.  If Enlightenment is it, OS/2 has less than I
thought.
> 
> >Good thing that's not "it".
> 
> It's all YOU listed.

It's all you asked for.

> >> I do use Unix. What about tools like Cygnus or MKS? Why doesn't OS/2
actually
> >> have tools that people who use Unix actually need and use?
> 
> >Like GCC, RCS, Grep, make, diff, ......?
> 
> All available under Windows. Keep trying.

You asked me if useful tools were available.  They are.

> >What do Cygnus and MKS do?
> 
> MKS is a commercial set of unix tools.

Which do what exactly?

> Cygnus is freeware, but charges for support and was just purchased by 
> RedHat.  Both are standards for people who work with Unix and Windows for 
> a living.

You still haven't established what they do.

> >> Enlightenment? Give me a break...
> 
> >Where would you like it?
> 
> Any post that try to sell Enlightenment has a big deal.

"Karmic realignment is not a tangible good that can be traded at a convenience
store."
- Homer Simpson

"You've got me there."
- Apu Narashapalaludapan

> >> >Which scripting languages can you use in NT that you can't use in OS/2?  
Prove
> >> >what you say instead of just declaring it.
> >>
> >> VB and Javascript.
> 
> >0 for 2.
> 
> Really? And how can OS/2 use either of these for scripting the OS/2? Try 
> issuing some Enlightenment instead of invoking it.

VABasic & Netscape.

> >> >> But as you and other OS/2 users have demostrated time and time again,
having
> >> >> many options do not interest you.
> >>
> >> >Not when we already have the right tools for the job.
> >>
> >> When a person only has one tool, it quickly becomes the right tool for
the job.
> >> I prefer to have some choices.
> 
> >I have choices.  I can choose Win32 apps if I like.  I don't "like".
> 
> I know the routine. You can dual boot. One can set their hair on fire too, 
> but few actually enjoy it.

You don't get the concept that I can format my hard drives tomorrow, removing
OS/2 if I so chose, and do away with this "inconvenience" if I cared at all
about it.  That hasn't happened because I have had no use for Win32 apps.  My
computer is not forever "broken" that I can never change OS's if I wanted to.

> >> >I find that it's easier to install something when I can control the
process, a
> >> >feeling I don't get when I use Winxx.
> >>
> >> Considering that on most hardware, advanced features are not available
under
> >> OS/2, thus completely removing control from the user, I find that an
> >> interesting statement. What install is available under both OS/2 and
Windows,
> >> yet gives OS/2 more options?
> 
> >You've irrelevantly twisted my statement.  I have more control over the
> >installation process in OS/2.  Please reread my statement.
> 
> How so? Explain.

I was referring to installation procedures and you are referring to available
features of newly installed hardware.

> >> >> Not at all. A virus under OS/2 in a DOS box can erase system files.
Under NT in
> >> >> a user or power user mode, the virus cannot do this.
> >>
> >> >If a virus attempts direct physical disk manipulations in OS/2 (which
are
> >> >necessary to overwrite boot sectors) it will be intercepted by the
operating
> >> >system.  Try it some time.
> >>
> >> If a virus attempts to perform a "del *.*" in the OS/2 system directory,
it
> >> will proceed merrily along. Under NT, it will fail in all but the admin
mode.
> 
> >And how many virii shell out to the command shell and execute "del *.*"?
> 
> You don't need to shell out. A simple system command will do. And really, 
> it point is that it can be done under OS/2 easily. Not so under NT. Don't 
> believe me?
> 
> Try it.

And this can't happen in a user's directory under NT?  I never claimed OS/2
was
secure.  What I did claim is that it cannot run (and therefore is not
vulnerable to) the far more common Winxx based virii, which is an absolute
truth.  I don't have to grimace and fear every time I open an e-mail message
from someone I don't know, or worry that my word processor is sending off
hundreds of messages to my friends with the web addresses of porn sites.

> >> >Runs any application that I want to use, and since the point was why I
would be
> >> >using OS/2 instead of NT your "factoid" does little to counter that.
> >>
> >> Fine. That doesn't change the fact that if you want more applications,
OS/2 is
> >> not the OS to use.
> 
> >Runs any application that I want to use, and since the point was why I
would be
> >using OS/2 instead of NT your "factoid" does little to counter that.
> 
> Fine. That doesn't change the fact that if you want more applications, OS/2
is
> not the OS to use.

Runs any application that I want to use, and since the point was why I would
be
using OS/2 instead of NT your "factoid" does little to counter that.

> >> Are you kidding? Hah!! I've got NT, Winzip, and Partition Magic on one
> >> partition taking up a total of 142 megs.
> >>
> >> Come back when you lose some weight. :-)
> 
> >And all you could do was run WinZip, Partition Magic (which was 100MB of it
> >right there ;-)), and Notepad.  Sorry, but that doesn't constitute a
useable
> >system for me.  My OS/2 functional install is several hundred MB smaller
than
> >what used to be my minimum NT functional install.
> 
> That just the NT partition. See, some of us install the OS on one partition
and
> apps on another.
> Fully usable, with more apps, more hardware support, and STILL less space
than
> OS/2.

Sorry, but that's just not true in my experience, nor in the experience of
many
others.  NT is just plain bigger than OS/2.  That's nothing to be ashamed of,
it's just a fact.

> Give it up.

Practice what you preach.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: znu@znu.dhs.org                                   18-Nov-99 23:34:16
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:10
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: znu@znu.dhs.org (ZnU)

In article <38340717.3710117@news.earthlink.net>, lars@bearnip.com wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:55:19 GMT, znu@znu.dhs.org (ZnU) wrote:
> 
> >Wonder if Mac OS X will be able to do this. Probably. It is a real-time OS
> >(I don't know why Apple doesn't hype that point more).
> 
> How fast is MacOS X? 
> 
> An OS with a guaranteed reaction time of 1 second is also a real-time
> OS - just not a very useful one (unless you're remote-controlling
> probes on far-away planets).

We won't know much about OS X's performance until Apple decided to compile
it without tons of debug code <g>.

-- 
All parts should go together without forcing.  You must remember that the
parts you are reassembling were disassembled by you.  Therefore, if you
can't get them together again, there must be a reason.  By all means, do
not use a hammer.
           --IBM maintenance manual, 1925

ZnU <znu@znu.dhs.org> | <http://znu.dhs.org>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Black Helicopter People (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alann@roava.net                                   18-Nov-99 18:53:04
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:10
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows... 

From: alann <alann@roava.net>

Mike Stephen wrote:
> 
> Although BEOS is miles ahead of Windows, it is only as good as Linux,
> and is far behind OS/2
> 
> I just finished my first week with Beos.  I must say I was hoping for
> more...  I came from the OS/2 WPS area and I have noticed more and
> more OS/2 users are having to leave OS/2 (due to lack of future
> support from IBM) and are looking for alternatives.
> 
I too came from OS/2 and only gave up OS/2 about 2 years ago when the 
applications stopped coming.  I loved the WPS,and OS/2 was very stable.
IBM sucks.

> 
> I tried Linux and FreeBSD but they have rather clunky multitasking,
> and have poorly written user interfaces (KDE and GNOME).  The UI is
> patterned after Windows and in my opinion it is just as flawed as the
> Windows interface is.  I would have hoped that the UI writers would be
> able to vastly improve upon Windows.....  It appears that none of the
> UI programmers for KDE, Gnome or BE have ever used the OS/2 WPS.
> 

I don't know about this.  I run Linux-Mandrake 6.1 with
gnome/enlightentment.
This destkop is one of the nicest around.  No its not the WPS, but with
its
looks and transparent windows, my friends are envious.  KDE is nice
also.
Much easier to configure and more usable.  It's tightly integrated with
KFM and KDE's other useful features.  Linux is my MAIN OS at current
time.

For one, Be is sadly lacking in the printing dept. ( I hear thats
changing
though ).

> If only some other operating system writers would at lease look into
> incorporating SOM and DSOM into a corba compliant WPS type of
> interface.  Millions of OS/2 users would flock to such an operating
> system.  BEOS is slightly better than Linux, but not as good as I was
> hoping...  Its multitasking is not as fluid as OS/2, its multimedia
> video support is not as good as OS/2.. Its multimedia sound capability
> is much better than all the rest including Os/2.  However sound is
> only a small part of multimedia.  Video is more important, and I was
> lead to believe that Beos was a leader in Video.  Well OS/2 does more
> video formats and does it much better than Beos m(at the operating
> system level, not at an application level)!  Running two videos as
> once tends to tax Beos to the limit.  Whereas I can run three or four
> videos in OS/2....  Hmmmmm wouldn't it be great if we could get IBM to
> spin off the os2 group as a separate company so that we could all get
> updated operating systems that work?

You must have something wrong. I can run 3 (video's )
under Linux flawless, the 4th
taxes it and this is with gnome/e which takes quite a bit of ram.

BeOS's multimedia is simply awsome.  I've never seen anything as good,
including high end mac's with media 100's at the tv station I work at
as an engineer.  I think Be is even smoother than the SGI machines
we have in the weather dept.  We have 3 SGI's, 2 O2's and an Indigo2.
Obviously I'm not running the same apps, but I would love to see a
comparible thing.  
> 
> Stability of Beos is a bit better than Windows, but not as stable as
> Warp OS/2.  It is about the same as Linux.  I Was able to lock up a
> few different apps during the week that required a hard reboot to
> clear. The multitasking is a bit clunky as well.  Warp seems to have a
> best compromise scheduler that allows multitasking

I'm not so sure about this either.. I crashed OS/2.. I crashed win ( 98
and NT ).
NT- so much I got tired of inserting 3 setup floppies to FIX it.
I crashed Linux once, maybe twice. Not to say things haven't locked up,
but killall -9 <filename> does nice.

I have locked up Be a few times, but not many.. This was with beta
release stuff.
> 
> So the search goes on.  I want to replace Warp Os/2, but so far
> nothing is anywhere near as easy to use or as reliable.  too bad IBM
> sold out to Microsoft and basically buried OS/2....


I agree, too bad. I loved OS/2 also, but I moved on and buried it 2
years ago.
I got over agonizing how good it was but nobody supported it..
You got the worlds best hackers writing linux stuff, and I see a lot of
this
moving to BeOS also..  I see quite a lot of future in BeOS and IMHO it's
still very
primitive..

Alan

-- 
======================================
alann@roava.net  (km4ig@arrl.net)
running Linux Mandrake 6.1 and/or BeOS.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Texas Institute of Turboencabulation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          18-Nov-99 18:27:20
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:10
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

mike@lionsgate.com (Mike Stephen) posted:

> If you found no significant differences between NT's multitasking nd
> OS/2's multitasking then I think you really do not run more than 2-3
> apps at once.  On my system just booting up to my standard screen,
> takes 24 active tasks,  33 processes, and 133 threads.  

Well, I just shut down the apps I have open here and looked at what I
would have running at bootup :- 37 processes and 208 threads. What do
you refer to as active tasks?

> Oh please  This from a Win advovate...  no less! My system is a bit on
> the slow side, it is a AMD 450Mhz with 64 megs dram.  If I play both
> the mpgs (the monitors thrown off the building) at the same time, they
> do not play smoothly at all.  This is fact, not exageration.

To be truthful, I've not done done multiple mpg plays with NT or OS/2.
What my test did entail was what consisted of a test was the
following.

I started printing of a 50page document on my canon printer (at the
time), fired up IE, went to a shareware site and started two
downloads. I then started formatting a floppy, opened another explorer
window and dragged and dropped a 8OMB e-mail folder archive on a zip
disk. I then double clicked on an mp3 and opened notepad and started
typing something. The mp3 played nicely, there was minimal hitch in
typing. The floppy had finished formatting before I could really
appreciate what was happening. :)

I did a similar sequence with OS/2 and much to my anger, I did not see
much difference. I was told you see and I believed it, that NT
couldn't multitask worth didly squat. I saw no significant difference
doing all this with NT as opposed to OS/2. This was a 200MHz machine
with 128MB of RAM. NT does well with the RAM.  

> :>He's one of those OS/2 advocates that's expects another OS/2 WPS out
> :>of another OS. If he doesn't get this, then it's crap and a total
> :>disappointment. The refute to this would be that OS/2 has made them
> :>expectant of high standards and intolerant of mediocrity. I say
> :>they're inflexible and almost obsessed in the main (this is a
> :>generalisation please).
> 
> Obsessed?  All I want is an operating system that at least meets my
> needs.  Windows certainly doesn't, and I was hoping BEOS did.  It
> doesn't either.  I do wish someone out there would adapt the SOM/DSOM
> model and incorporate it into a GUI like the WPS.  I do not need it to
> look like the WPS, just act like it.  At least I consider BEOS a lot
> better than Windows NT.  However it still is no match for Warp OS/2. 
> I can demonstrate it any time for anyone who wishes.  Just send me a
> note when you are in Vancouver.  I have both operating systems
> installed and can demontrate those same two mpg files in both BEOS and
> OS/2.  You can decide which operating system can handle the two MPGS
> better.
> 

Sure. :)

-- 
-=Ali M.=-

Mail to: <alliem 'at' wtjam 'dot' net>
         

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Dept. of Surgery, UHWI (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         19-Nov-99 00:29:20
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:10
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:

CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so inclined.

I am deleting all but the most recent new text.

Curtis Bass writes:
  
> -- snip --

> That's a classic Tholen strategy, Mike.

How ironic, coming from someone whose classic strategy consists of
deleting evidence.  Interesting that Timbol has utilized the same
strategy.  "Birds of a feather..."

> He misinterprets what his adversary says,

What alleged misinterpretation, Curtis?

> and insist that his misinterpretation

What alleged misinterpretation, Curtis?

> is the correct interpretation,

I didn't "insist" on anything, Curtis.  I simply proved that it is the
correct interpretation by reproducing the actual relevant quotation.

> regardless of his your adversary says the correct interpretation is.

Timbol has often tried to twist the meaning of his own writings in a
feeble attempt to save face, Curtis.  Witness one of his recent gaffes:

MT] "Can utilize when browsing"?  What the hell does that mean?

He wound up trying to use a semantic argument over the difference
between a Java applet and a Java application, which doesn't really
address the quesiton of why he had no idea of how Java gets utilized
when browsing.

> Classic.

How ironic, coming from someone whose deletion tactic is "classic".

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         19-Nov-99 00:32:27
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:10
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:

CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so inclined.

I am deleting all but the most recent new text.

Curtis Bass writes:

> This analysis nails Dave's apparent dishonesty and his apparent lack of
> courage quite effectively.

Too bad Marty's so-called "analysis" completely ignored the fact that
Timbol referred to AbstractMethodError.class and ZipOutputStream.class
as the first and last files in classes.zip, Curtis.  That information
destroys Marty's so-called analysis (which could explain why he chose
to ignore it), and proves that I was not dishonest.  Thus your conclusion
about my alleged "lack of courage" is, to use your own description,
"inept".

> Of course, Dave will disagree.

And with good reason, Curtis.

> Well, he appears to be fooling himself quite effectively.

What appears to you is irrelevant, Curtis.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               18-Nov-99 20:34:13
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:10
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451501

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

Tholen is still avoiding all issues presented and accusing me of playing an
infantile game.  Even he seems to be tiring of his own vaudeville routines, as
he hasn't even responded with his Eliza quotes and "warning".  Too bad he
hasn't gotten tired enough to face reality and admit his mistakes, but no one
expects him to anyway.  Here's the growing list of things to which he hasn't
responded:

> 1> And speaking of parrot responses, here's a smathering of more of Dave's
> 1> hypocrisy from just the few posts of his that I bothered to scan today:

[Note: the following embarrassing text was dishonestly deleted]
MT> You're full of shit, Dave:
DT> Balderdash, Mike.  You're the one full of it.

MT> Try and keep up.
DT> How ironic, coming from the person who isn't keeping up.

MT> leading you to draw that wrong conclusion. 
DT> How ironic, coming from the person who made a wrong conclusion

MT> You aren't fooling anybody.
DT> Irrelevant, given that I'm not trying to fool anybody, Mike.

MT> When you keep arguing points that you've clearly lost, you only make
MT> yourself look even more pathetic.
DT> How ironic, coming from someone who looks even more pathetic.

> 1> Tholen want a cracker?

Note: no response

> 1> What's unfortunate is that Tholen doesn't realize that he is finding
> 1> his own behavior irksome and counterproductive.  How embarassing!  And
> 1> despite the evidence I've presented, he still claims that I have no basis
> 1> for saying that he's playing an "infantile game".  Here's what Dr.
Sbaitso
> 1> has to say today, in an attempt to help Tholen work through his mental
> 1> distresses:

Note: no response

> 1> MUST BE SOMEONE ELSE

Note: no response

> 1> BUT YOU COULD BE RIGHT

Note: no response

> 1> WHAT ARE YOUR REAL PROBLEMS?

Note: no response

[Note: the following embarrassing text was dishonestly deleted]
> 1> Dave, stupidly as usual, continues to ignore the fact that Mike
> 1> referred to classes.zip as being compressed.  The only way he could
> 1> view classes.zip as being compressed is if it were inside of
> 1> JAVAINUF.EXE because the classes.zip file itself has 0% compression
> 1> as I have shown in the past.  Too bad Dave doesn't let facts get in
> 1> the way of his fantasy world.

Note: no response

[Note: the following embarrassing text was dishonestly deleted]
> 2> Kinda like Tholen "shouting" that I'm playing an infantile game over
> 2> and over again without any basis.

Note: no response
 
[Note: the following embarrassing text was dishonestly deleted]
> 3> Consistent with Tholen's recent justification for his snippage:
> 1> Note: text omitted from original article
> 3> I am deleting all but the most recent new text.
 
Note: no response

[Note: the following embarrassing text was dishonestly deleted]
> 3> If anyone doubts that Dave is playing an "infantile game" after
> 3> reading today's digest, please let him know.  He'll probably try
> 3> to use the fact that no one has contacted him as evidence of a
> 3> general agreement between himself and "his readers", however to
> 3> use his own words, he "would be unlikely to obtain a statistically
> 3> significant sample".  What will be obvious from reading the digest
> 3> is the fact that Dave hasn't responded to any articles with anything
> 3> of value.  This has come to be expected from him, however, and should
> 3> not be a surprise to anyone.

Note: no response
 
[Note: the following embarrassing text was dishonestly deleted]
> 3> It seems he got his infantile wrath out of his system (after warning
> 3> me "about going down that path"), and has resumed taking my statements
> 3> completely out of context and responding to them inappropriately.
> 3> Again, no surprise for those who have read a few of Tholen's postings.

Note: no response
 
[Note: the following embarrassing text was dishonestly deleted]
> 3> Here's today's digest, with appropriate commentary by Dr. Sbaitso
> 3> version 1.01 by Creative Labs:> 1> Note: no response

Note: no response

> 3> DON'T STAND ON CEREMONY

Note: no response

> 3> WHAT IS IT THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW?

Note: no response

> 3> WHY DO YOU ASK THIS QUESTION?

Note: no response

> 3> IT IS HARD TO EXPLAIN DAVE THOLEN

Note: no response

> 3> I KNOW YOUR NAME IS DAVE THOLEN, THAT'S ALL

Note: no response

> 3> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOU

Note: no response

> 3> AH , WHAT KIND OF ANSWER WOULD PLEASE YOU THE MOST?

Note: no response

DAVE THOLEN, IT IS SO NICE TALKING TO YOU, BYE! 

Note: no response
 
> 1> DAVE THOLEN, IT IS SO NICE TALKING TO YOU, BYE!

Note: no response
 
> 2> Dave Tholen wrote (using a more powerful "brain" than his again):

Note: no response
 
> 2> YOU'D BETTER WATCH OUT FOR YOUR PLANS HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS.

Note: no response
 
> 2> DAVE THOLEN, I NEED MORE COMPUTING POWER TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION

Note: no response
 
> 2> WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Note: no response
 
> 2> FORGET ABOUT ME, I AM MORE CONCERN OF YOU

Note: no response
 
> 2> DOES IT PLEASE YOU TO BELIEVE THAT I AM GOING THROUGH ALL THIS?

Note: no response
 
> 2> I AM NOT SURE IF I AM SURE THAT THOSE AM ELIZA'S?

Note: no response
 
> 2> MY PLANS HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS. IS NOT OF YOUR CONCERN

Note: no response
 
> 2> WHAT IS IT THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW?

Note: no response
 
> 2> HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Note: no response
 
> 2> ARE YOU REALLY TALKING ABOUT ME?

Note: no response
 
> 2> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

Note: no response
 
> 2> WHY ARE YOU SO INTERESTED IN WHETHER I AM SURE THAT THOSE AM ELIZA'S?

Note: no response
 
> 2> WHY THE UNCERTAIN TONE ?

Note: no response
 
> 2> I AM NOT INTERESTING, ASK ME ABOUT SOME OTHER THINGS INSTEAD

Note: no response

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         19-Nov-99 00:23:29
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:10
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:

CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so inclined.

I am deleting all but the most recent new text.

Curtis Bass writes:

> Classic Tholen: Misinterpret what your opponent says

What alleged misinterpretation, Curtis?

> and insist that your misinterpretation

What alleged misinterpretation, Curtis?

> is the correct interpretation,

I didn't "insist" on anything, Curtis.  I simply proved that it is the
correct interpretation by reproducing the actual relevant quotation.

> because it's the "logical" one,

On the contrary, one doesn't require logic to recognize an actual
quotation, Curtis.

> based on your own twisted brand of "logic."

What's allegedly "twisted" about my logic, Curtis?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               18-Nov-99 20:20:13
  To: All                                               18-Nov-99 23:54:10
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

void wrote:
> 
> I have asked Marty all of these questions repeatedly, which is why he no
> longer responds to my posts -- he has no answers.

Well, there goes that theory...

> He is, in short, a troll.

I hope you realize that you just called an OS/2 freeware developer an MS
troll.  I hope you also realize how silly that sounds.

Now, so that you don't feel left out, I'll answer Lars' article in response to
you (void).

> In article <1e1a7cr.13pmcty1f68x4qN%Fam.Traeger@t-online.de>, Lars Trger
> wrote:
>
> >Do you really think that MS would need less window cleaners, janitors
> >etc. than they do now? Will they just keep on working in a dirty
> >building because they had to pay some fine?

If you were an MS exec and you had to lose a certain head count, who would you
axe?

> >Will they need less people to write their (crappy) software?

If you were in a position to make the decision would you choose what is best
for the company which could put your own job at risk, or would you fire off
some faceless grunts?

> >If yes, why? Will those who write competing software not need programmers?

Sure they will, but getting fired and moving to a new company is not my
personal idea of a good time.  Is it yours?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: flmighe@attglobal.net                             19-Nov-99 03:34:10
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 03:31:19
Subj: Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES EX

From: flmighe@attglobal.net

In <udcwOBg00GeJoV5kTSPS698QwfzE@4ax.com>, Diablo <kinghell@earthlink.net>
writes:
>I Here Their Is A Version Of Os/2 Warp 4 That Can Run
>Windows 95 Insted Of Win 3.1 And That People Who
>Have Been Inside IBM Have Actually Seen It Work
>But Can't Be Released Because Microsoft Wont Alow It
>I Would Love It If Some One Could Get A Copy Of It
>And Post It Here Or Give An FTP SITE To Where It
>Is At. 

As far as I know, all the ThinkPads from 380 on up are
capable of that. Yesterday, I tried it, just to confirm on
one of the 380D Thinkpad computers that egghead is
selling for < $800 .

OS/2 Warp 4 loaded into the C: partition where  
Windows 95 had been pre loaded by IBM. Once loaded
I was able to boot back to Windows 95 without problem.
Then after shutting down to DOS mode I was able to boot
back to OS/2. I could not go directly from Windows 95 to
OS/2. That was the only bit missing. Windows 95 was
intact. OS/2 worked fine. I even got Win OS/2. You would
probably need to fiddle a bit to get special drivers and
sound but it was an easy install.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: pcguido@attglobal.net                             19-Nov-99 04:06:29
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 03:31:19
Subj: Re: I am worried about our future generations...

From: pcguido@attglobal.net

First (let's get it out of the way):

This is an OS/2 newsgroup. There is no future. Get over it...

OK, that being said; the MS shills are (as always) sadly mistaken
if they think: a) They will change any minds with their drivel.
b) Immagine they are here, convincing the right people.

Just as when they tried (and failed) to promote Win95 to a 32-bit
Operating System, we were not who needed to be convinced, it was
the Penitum Pro that needed fooling, which they never could manage,
hence the Pentium II with its 16-bit optimizations...

So what's next? Win2k will be different? Microsoft is _not_ a
monopoly (and even if they are, they're a nice one...)?

Sounds more like: Just how many impossible things can you
believe before breakfast?

Guido


In <3831EDB2.BD55DB28@nls.net>, "David D. Huff Jr." <huffd@nls.net> writes:
|Every time one of these whiny-ass MicroSloth crusaders writes me
|personally and spews forth revisionist history.
|
|The last one claims that IBM helped to setup MicroSloth at the
|anti-trust hearings. I thought that was called testimony now they call
|it setting someone up.
|
|Part of the letter I received discussed a part of computer history that
|happened twenty years ago. And this brash young fellow proceeds to tell
|me how I have it all wrong. Piss on you I was here I lived it! It just
|hasn't been the same since the trial. All of these weirdos are coming
|out of the closet and counter posting or writing direct about
|everything. It looks like the devil wants to have his day and his
|minions are doing their best to put on a full court press. But dang guys
|you aint gona change my mind. I think maybe I should play a more active
|part in your re-education.
|
|Even with all the in-fighting and back-biting between the OS2 dudes and
|dudetts we look pretty normal compared to most of the stupidity embraced
|by the opposition.
|



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: pcguido@attglobal.net                             19-Nov-99 04:09:00
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 03:31:19
Subj: Re: OS/2 on large hard disks

From: pcguido@attglobal.net

Go ask in comp.os.os2.setup.storage, fool.


In <1e1eiua.1ldcxd81mairrgN@dialup-385.germany.ecore.net>,
andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) writes:
|Somebody sent the required file to me a month ago, but I seem to have
|lost it. Now I have finally found the time to install OS/2 once again on
|my Intel machine. Looking for the right link on the IBM website I found
|nothing. Could somebody point me to the right file please?
|
|--
|Fan of Woody Allen
|User of MacOS, BeOS, LinuxPPC
|Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: pcguido@attglobal.net                             19-Nov-99 04:12:19
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 03:31:19
Subj: Re: Windows posting activitiy...

From: pcguido@attglobal.net

In <38326E46.5C5573@worldnet.att.net>, Forrest Gehrke
<fegehrke@worldnet.att.net> writes:
|rj friedman wrote:
||
|| On Mon, 15 Nov 1999 15:47:06, "David T. Johnson"
|| <djohnson@isomedia.com> wrote:
||
|| It seems that our resident "Windows Advocates" here, McCoy, Glatt, and
|| Robinson, have been posting here more frequently and their posts are
|| more antagonstic than usual.  Is this a response to Microsoft's recent
|| court defeats?
||
|| If you've been on advocacy for any length of time you will
|| notice that every time MS is in trouble - usually with being
|| late with a buggy product release, or facing the release of
|| an `opponent's superior product, all of a sudden there are a
|| raft of MS propoganda parroting stooges that show up out of
|| the blue (Robinson and Mulligan being but the latest in a
|| long string of ventriloquists' dummies). Between the
|| disaster that Windows 2ooo is turning out to be, and the
|| whupping MS got at their monopoly trial, these shills are
|| having to work overtime.
||
|
|There are a few more new ones claiming to be former OS/2 users
|frequenting the place ("I switched; therefor you need to").
|But what happened to their longest-lasting exponent Debeste?
|
|What with Judge Jackson's scathing F of F pronouncement,
|the late and becoming later W2K release, and the continuing
|discovery of security leaks, there is a greater than
|usual desperation to their squawks and rants.
|
|An interesting addition is that some of these posters
|are also showing up in COLA with separate attacks on the
|Linux advocates. With the increasing popularity of Linux
|some guns are now being aimed at them. The argument is
|a little different: "Installation awful; NT4 smooth as
|a baby's hehind".
|
|Is MS unleashing the storm-troopers?
|//

With that bunch, it's more like the puddle-troopers.

National sales of Depends have gone up 60% since the FoF...

Guido


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: pcguido@attglobal.net                             19-Nov-99 04:34:06
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 03:31:19
Subj: Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES EX

From: pcguido@attglobal.net

Not to point out the obvious or anything; but, he
wants OS/2 to run Win95, not his PC.i

Give-it-up, won't happen for a number of reasons.

1. (Technical) Differing memory models.

Win-32 allocates a 2 GB user address space, OS/2 allocates
a 512 MB user address space. The first thing that Win95
does when DOS loads it, is to touch the 2 GB line - causing
a fatal error in OS/2. IBM could change this; but that would
(or at least, might) break a lot of legacy code in the
vertical apps that big OS/2 customers have written over the
years.

2. (Business Reasons) Investment Protection

IBM has lots of big customers (read enterprise) who use
many different sizes of computers and write a lot of their
own apps. IBM avoids doing anything that would devalue
a customer's previous investment in IBM solutions. This is
the reason always cited by IBM for not pursuing #1 above.

3. (Legal) MS vs DOJ

IBM is not stupid enough to try to prove to the DOJ that
there _is_ a way around the MS monopoly. Plenty of time
for that after the hangin' judge guts 'em. For now, any
attempt at real competition will have to come from the
Linux kids.

Personally, I hope MS fights the DOJ to the last Windows OEM.
Once the judge rules them an illegal monopolist, they will
be liable to myriad civil suits, all for tripple damages.
Gates might actually be able to tough out the goverment,
after all IBM did; but, he'll never survive the death of
a thousand cuts that all the little folk who he's bullied
will inflict.

Hope he's too proud to settle...


Guido

In <3834c53c_2@news1.prserv.net>, flmighe@attglobal.net writes:
|In <udcwOBg00GeJoV5kTSPS698QwfzE@4ax.com>, Diablo <kinghell@earthlink.net>
writes:
||I Here Their Is A Version Of Os/2 Warp 4 That Can Run
||Windows 95 Insted Of Win 3.1 And That People Who
||Have Been Inside IBM Have Actually Seen It Work
||But Can't Be Released Because Microsoft Wont Alow It
||I Would Love It If Some One Could Get A Copy Of It
||And Post It Here Or Give An FTP SITE To Where It
||Is At.
|
|As far as I know, all the ThinkPads from 380 on up are
|capable of that. Yesterday, I tried it, just to confirm on
|one of the 380D Thinkpad computers that egghead is
|selling for < $800 .
|
|OS/2 Warp 4 loaded into the C: partition where
|Windows 95 had been pre loaded by IBM. Once loaded
|I was able to boot back to Windows 95 without problem.
|Then after shutting down to DOS mode I was able to boot
|back to OS/2. I could not go directly from Windows 95 to
|OS/2. That was the only bit missing. Windows 95 was
|intact. OS/2 worked fine. I even got Win OS/2. You would
|probably need to fiddle a bit to get special drivers and
|sound but it was an easy install.
|
|http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm
|



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: JNiffen@IBM.Net                                   18-Nov-99 22:44:19
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 03:31:19
Subj: Re: Public awareness week - ebay is allowing illegal activities to occu

From: JNiffen <JNiffen@IBM.Net>

Tim Smith wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:59:15 -0600, Kelly Robinson <ispy@groovyshow.com>
wrote:
> >I have talked to ebay once and got blown off.  I have recently sent them
> 
> If you were as confused and rambling and unfocused in your letter to them
> as you were in your posting here, they probably simply concluded that you
> were someone who had gone off your medication.
> 
> --Tim Smith

I will agree the individual did go on a bit too, much but that crack was
uncalled for.

Here is a situation, you be the judge:

A person puts a laptop on the E-bay site, and after the bidding closes,
he finds out who were the five top bidders.  He sends out e-mails that
the top bidder did not come through, and will sell the machine at their
last bid.  Or he could say to three people, that he had two more
machines.

The truth in the matter, he had NO machines at all and did trick a few
of the people into sending him checks.  

I am sorry, E-Bay at least has the responsibily of giving the person
address to the US Postal service to arrest this crook.

If you feel that E-Bay can sit on their butt, and say "Hey we are only
the bullent board here".  So be it.  I feel that they could be more
caring for thier customers.  Or someone will take the market away from
them.  For them to ask for an insurance policy, is rediculous.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com               19-Nov-99 00:59:20
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 03:31:20
Subj: Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES EX

From: "Kim Cheung" <kimwaicSpamGoToGarbage@deltanet.com>

On 19 Nov 1999 04:34:12 GMT, pcguido@attglobal.net wrote:

>Not to point out the obvious or anything; but, he
>wants OS/2 to run Win95, not his PC.i
>
>Give-it-up, won't happen for a number of reasons.
>
>1. (Technical) Differing memory models.
>
>Win-32 allocates a 2 GB user address space, OS/2 allocates
>a 512 MB user address space. The first thing that Win95
>does when DOS loads it, is to touch the 2 GB line - causing
>a fatal error in OS/2. IBM could change this; but that would
>(or at least, might) break a lot of legacy code in the
>vertical apps that big OS/2 customers have written over the
>years.
>

I don't think that's a problem.   WsEB raised that limit already and it's not
breaking anything.

>2. (Business Reasons) Investment Protection
>
>IBM has lots of big customers (read enterprise) who use
>many different sizes of computers and write a lot of their
>own apps. IBM avoids doing anything that would devalue
>a customer's previous investment in IBM solutions. This is
>the reason always cited by IBM for not pursuing #1 above.
>

Well, if we are talking about making SIQ to NSIQ, yes - but raising memory
limit hasn't break anything so far.

>Hope he's too proud to settle...

Hunts brother didn't quit.    Why should Gates?


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: TouchVoice Corporation (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: float@incandescent.firedrake.org                  19-Nov-99 06:52:28
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 03:31:20
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: float@incandescent.firedrake.org (void)

In article <3834A5DA.F13CA97F@stny.rr.com>, Marty wrote:
>void wrote:
>
>> He is, in short, a troll.
>
>I hope you realize that you just called an OS/2 freeware developer an MS
>troll.  I hope you also realize how silly that sounds.

If you're trolling, you're a troll.  It's not a value judgment about
your character, it's an observation of your behavior.

>> >Do you really think that MS would need less window cleaners, janitors
>> >etc. than they do now? Will they just keep on working in a dirty
>> >building because they had to pay some fine?
>
>If you were an MS exec and you had to lose a certain head count, who would
you
>axe?

Bzzt.  You still haven't shown why MS would be firing people, an outcome
which you pulled out of yo^H^Hthin air and haven't substantiated at all
yet.

>> >Will they need less people to write their (crappy) software?
>
>If you were in a position to make the decision would you choose what is best
>for the company which could put your own job at risk, or would you fire off
>some faceless grunts?

Neither, most likely.  Your "question" is just a blatant restating of
your weak premise.

>> >If yes, why? Will those who write competing software not need programmers?
>
>Sure they will, but getting fired and moving to a new company is not my
>personal idea of a good time.  Is it yours?

I dunno, it's stressful, but every time I change companies, I make a lot
more money.

Anyway, the courts are not here to ensure that everyone has "a good
time".  And, again, you've still given nobody any reason at all to
believe that any remedy the courts might impose would cause layoffs at
Microsoft.  This is a fantasy, it has no basis in reality.  I've
challenged you repeatedly to explain why Microsoft wouldn't simply
absorb any losses it sustains and keep operating at full speed, or why
they couldn't cut costs on hardware expenditures, or raise their prices,
or come out with a new Windows or Office upgrade, or sell some stock, or
do anything else besides fire people.

After all, in today's job market, it's all anyone can do to find and
keep a competent technical staff.  Microsoft would be idiotic to fire
programmers.  (Well, they should probably fire some of those programmers
anyway -- did anyone here read about the buffer overflow in Wordpad
today?)  And their demand for unskilled labor can't be terribly elastic
-- how much money, in terms of percentage of their budget, do you think
a company like Microsoft spends?  Go ahead and produce a figure,
Microsoft's books should be available, since they're publically traded.

-- 
 Ben

[X] YES! I'm a brain-damaged lemur on crack, and I'd like to
    order your software package for $459.95!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Firedrake Synthesis (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         19-Nov-99 07:06:26
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 05:24:20
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

void writes:

> Marty wrote:

>> void wrote:

>>> He is, in short, a troll.

>> I hope you realize that you just called an OS/2 freeware developer an MS
>> troll.  I hope you also realize how silly that sounds.

> If you're trolling, you're a troll.  It's not a value judgment about
> your character, it's an observation of your behavior.

You can also observe him responding to people that he allegedly put
into his killfile.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         19-Nov-99 07:22:29
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 05:24:20
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451502

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Marty's still at his "infantile game", and, amazingly enough, apparently
expects responses to his computer-generated "baby-talk tripe" (thirty-
five times!).  Meanwhile he continues to ignore the fact that the
referenced AbstractMethodError.class and ZipOutputStream.class happen
to be in classes.zip, which destroys the argument that he, Bass, and
Timbol have been trying to use.

1> No need.  It's being shown clear as day below:

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Note that the above snippet was taken out of the context of the
1> paragraph in which it resides.  Here is the above snippet placed
1> back in context:

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Notice how statistics on its compression ratio are given.  Also
1> notice that classes.zip has no compression internal to itself as
1> I have demonstrated in the past and anyone with said file can easily
1> verify.  Therefore, the only context in which one can examine
1> classes.zip and refer to it as being compressed is in the context of
1> the file residing within JAVAINUF.EXE.  Notice how Dave conveniently
1> left this piece of information out when he quoted Mike.  How dishonest,
1> but that's par for the course for Tholen.  Notice also that Tholen has
1> failed to address this issue after the numerous times I've presented
1> it to him and instead hides behind his baseless accusations of playing
1> an infantile game or his Eliza non-responses.  I guess he just doesn't
1> have the courage to admit he is wrong yet again.  No surprise there.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

1> Amazing how Dave thinks he's fooling anyone.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

2> How embarrassing.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

2> That answers that question.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

2> How embarrassing.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
 
2> Indeed.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

2> Apparently Dave wants Curtis to have it his way.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

2> Does Dave enjoy talking to himself and answering his own questions?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
 
2> How embarrassing.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
 
2> Too bad javainuf.exe has nothing to do with WinZip being superior to
2> InfoZip.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
 
2> Further evidence is not needed.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
 
3> Tholen is still avoiding all issues presented and accusing me of
3> playing an infantile game.  Even he seems to be tiring of his own
3> vaudeville routines, as he hasn't even responded with his Eliza
3> quotes and "warning".  Too bad he hasn't gotten tired enough to
3> face reality and admit his mistakes, but no one expects him to
3> anyway.  Here's the growing list of things to which he hasn't
3> responded:

3> Note: no response

3> Note: no response

3> Note: no response

3> Note: no response

3> Note: no response

3> Note: no response

3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response

3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response

3> Note: no response

3> Note: no response

3> Note: no response

3> Note: no response

3> Note: no response

3> Note: no response

3> Note: no response

3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response
 
3> Note: no response

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: brentb21@home.com                                 14-Nov-99 17:24:02
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 05:24:20
Subj: Re: The Microsnot PR Quiz

From: Brent <brentb21@home.com>

Jeff Glatt wrote:

> >"Kelly Robinson" <ispy@groovyshow.com>
> >I've never heard of this company, Microsnot, before. What do they do?
>
> I think that they make blinders for IBM executives who have openly
> testified in court that they were utterly "powerless" to compete
> against a company that is a fraction of the size, and has a fraction
> of the resources, of IBM

Jeff,
Are you really this STUPID???? or do you just like to embarrass your parents?

Brent

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: wsonna@ibm.net                                    14-Nov-99 17:00:27
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 05:24:20
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: wsonna@ibm.net (William Sonna)

On Sun, 14 Nov 1999 05:53:36, jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt) 
wrote:

> >>William Sonna
> >>Could you please tell us which major manufacturers sell their 
> >>computers without Windows?
>  
> >I tend to avoid major OEMs since I find the quality of their consumer
> >machines of questionable quality. I tend to get my own put together
> >from hand picked components, then delivered.
> 
> So do I. I've built every one of my own computers, and done likewise
> for many other people.
> 

Having never bought one premade, and seeing both the low prices being 
asked these days AND the pile of obsolete computer junk I'm 
accumulating in my attic, I'm thinking it may no longer be worth it.

> But I don't believe that William can do this. He needs to buy a
> pre-built system from someone. (Personally, I don't know as if someone
> who can't build a computer should be ordering one without an OS
> installed, and messing around with his own installation. Sometimes,
> you may need to swap out cards and do other hardware tweaks to get an
> OS installed and working properly).
> 

I've personally found building clones ridiculously simple.

Apparently, learing how to do it was a significant accomplishment for 
you and you have my heartiest congratulations.

[snip]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Global Network Services - Remote Access Mail & Ne
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com                        19-Nov-99 08:13:08
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 05:24:20
Subj: Re: The Microsnot PR Quiz

From: "Brent Davies" <brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com>

M. Vaughn <matt.spamblows.vaughn@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:matt.spamblows.vaughn-1811990654080001@pool-209-138-154-091-ipls.grid.n
et...
| In article <WhPY3.23950$zd.249695@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com>, "Brent
| Davies" <brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com> wrote:
|
[snip]
| >
| > If I was getting paid by MS to be here, it wouldn't be to talk to the
likes
| > of you.
| >
| > -B
|
| Ooh, I'm stinging from the pain of that slap. Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! Wait, that
| was *kinda nice*.  So, um, thank you sir, may I have another?

"Usenet.  You will never find a more retched hive of scum
and villainy."

-B


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbzh@my-deja.com                                  19-Nov-99 08:24:05
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 05:24:20
Subj: Re: first look at BEOS

From: cbzh@my-deja.com

In article <8111at$gr5$1@hop.gmd.de>,
  veit@capri.gmd.de (Holger Veit) wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:59:59 GMT, cbzh@my-deja.com <cbzh@my-deja.com>
wrote:
> >In article <slrn837i1o.8bh.veit@simi.gmd.de>,
> >  veit@simi.gmd.de (Holger Veit) wrote:
> >> On 18 Nov 1999 07:47:39 GMT, uno@40th.com <uno@40th.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >Jean-Pierre Cabani'e?
(cabanieATlep-philipsDOTfrREMOVE@nospam.org?)
> >wrote (Thu
> >> build a car either one or the other way. This does not hold for the
> >WPS
> >> vs. Win GUI. The latter is a broken concept by design, the former
is a
> >> broken concept by the applications written by programmers who
haven't
> >> understood the concept
> >
> >...not only: The WPS is very nice for the user, but for the
programmer
> >it has a main drawback: He better be infaillible! The point is that
all
>
> I do expect that he/she is! This seems to be a strange requirement
> nowadays - where it has been accepted that computer crash once in a
while.
> The notorious comparison "if GM would produce cars the way M$ writes
software"
> is an indicator that still computer "science" is dilletantism par
excellence,
> not engineering.
>

Ok, as a developer myself (right now professionally for WinNT and as a
hobbyist for OS/2) I must admit: I DO make errors! And, of course, I try
my best to use all possible techniques to avoid them, so my argument is
not an excuse for badly written software - this would be a
misunderstanding!

My point is rather this one: Why do we first introduce protected address
spaces for each running process - which was one of the main advantages
of OS/2 compared to other popular OS'ses at the time when it came out!
-, and then we implement a GUI that reintroduces the problem of Win3
where all programs shared the same address space? I switched to OS/2 in
1992 because of its conceptual superiority, and the "crash protection"
was of course one of the main features - and of course still is!

> >possible WPS extensions (derived WPS classes) are actually DLLs
running
> >in one and the same address space as the WPS itself, meaning errors
can
> >kill the whole user interface - which every OS/2 will be familiar
with:
> >The WPS "hangs", but the FTP program goes on downloading...
>
> Then, damned, write your FTP DLL in a way that return codes are
checked,
> and error conditions will be trapped. Doing so is more work,
admittedly.
> It is not the problem of the WPS to run in the same address space, it
is
> pure sloppiness of coding (stemming from lousy specification). In the
> medieval times, craftsmen were killed when producing inferior work;
maybe
> it would be a good idea to reinstall this policy today (you wouldn't
> do such a job then? - okay - see where you can get your income then).
>

Ok, I was not clear here: I meant a standalone FTP program that is NOT
integrated in the WPS (I'm using NFTP usually): These will go on running
even if the whole WPS is "blocked" by the one or other extension: I can
just sit and wait until the download is successfully terminated. And
this is of course the famous "crash protection" at work: One application
(the WPS) crashes while the other one (e.g. NFTP or something else) is
not affected. The problem is only: A crashed WPS can still make the PC
unuseable if the input devices do not react any more. This is why I
would prefer to see such a central element as the WPS a little bit
better protected - again not as an excuse for bad programs of course!
More like we have to put our oil tanks here in Switzerland not just in
the ground, but put them into a concrete basin that COULD hold the whole
content of the tank: This seems me to be a good idea even if the
intention is NOT damaging the tank!

> >Coming back to the subject of this "side-thread" about "ideal user
> >interfaces": Mine would be designed very much like the WPS, but the
> >different "objects" and "classes" should run in their own process
> >address space, interacting with pipes, shared memory and whatever.
This
> >would add some interaction overhead of course, but I think the GUI
could
> >be much more stable than the WPS that way! This looks like a very
> >deep sitting design flaw of the WPS to me that should be corrected
when
> >building a new GUI for another OS!
>
> This misses the problem. It works around the problem of lousily
written
> software; but doesn't fix it. X11 has since the very beginning a
client-
> server concept. Unless you really trigger a bug in the server, it is
almost
> impossible to crash it. But you can still hang it with bad client
software.
> I see this constantly with Rational Rose for Solaris, using a Win
emulation
> library: it is really compatible to Windows: the application grabs
oodles
> of memory, crashes frequently, blocks the desktop, and is not
compliant to
> the X11 window manager conventions. I don't want to know what would
happen
> if it would run in a shared address space, but separate address spaces
> are no excuse for not doing solid craftsmanwork.
>

Again: Of course you are right with this point - but that was not the
point of my posting!

Greetings,

Cornelis Bockemhl <cbockem@datacomm.ch>
Author of "PmAs - Astronomy for the Presentation Manager"
http://www.datacomm.ch/cobo


> Holger
>
> --
> If Microsoft is ever going to produce something that does not suck,
> it is very likely a vacuum cleaner.
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbzh@my-deja.com                                  19-Nov-99 08:42:29
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 05:24:20
Subj: Re: first look at BEOS

From: cbzh@my-deja.com

In article <8114u2$r1a$1@nnrp1.deja.com>,
  mike@lionsgate.com wrote:

[...all previous citations deleted here...]
>
> You aced it!  The WPS does indeed need improvment as you
> suggested.  I really do wish other developers would look at the
> WPS and understand how it works.  We should be able to get the
> SOM and DSOM code from IBM.  If I remember correctly the code
> was offered to the Corba group....
>

I was already asking myself if DSOM could not be used for that purpose:
It is "Distributed SOM", i.e. a further development of SOM, but not
requiring the components to reside on the same computer, but if they
still do, they could at least be separated in different processes ??!

I must say I don't know if this is a way to go for the WPS because I did
not go into the subject deep enough, but "from far" it looks like a
promising direction to me!

> It really dosen't fit the unix type market though....  I will
> have to give some thought to that so that I might come up with a
> method of linking the objects with the files ala some sort of
> extended attributes.  Hopfully better than the FAT file type of
> EADATA that Warp had for filesystems other than HPFS and TVS and
> HPFS386.
>
> The other main feature of Warp in my opinion is the fluid
> multitasking it offers.  The scheduler is far ahead of all the
> unixes I have played with and blows away all the Windows
> versions I have used.  This is much harder than the WPS add on.
> I think it is not even possible to offer the kind of responce
> Warp has on any other platform.  All the others appear to me to
> seem rather slow and clunky when using more than 5-7
> applications.
>

I feel that every day, since I am used to open many, many programs at
the same time, and even on my 48MB/166MHz notebook with OS/2 this does
not "punished" by worse performance. Often I tend to do the same at work
on my NT computer (64MB/266MHz, I think...), but there having many
applications open in the background "costs": For my subjective feeling
this system is "slower" than the OS/2 notebook! In my eyes this is also
an issue of a better swapping strategy in OS/2.

> This is a big differance from the Windows style...  Windows
> gives a massive CPU advantage to the foreground application.
> This makes the user think that the os is running quickly.  For
> most people this is true, since they only run one app at a time.
>
> OS/2 on the other hand, gives all apps a shot at the cpu.  Even
> a low idle priority task gets raised up the priority ladder unti
> it gets a cpu hit.  this comromise style of Warp allows all
> tasks to run in a much smoother manner.  In the Windows world
> you cannot rely on a background task to continue running
> properly if it requires constant updating. In those cases where
> it does happen in windows, the author of the program usually
> gives the app all the priority he/she deems it to require.

...and once you do that (or rather have to do that) as a programmer the
system will lose it's responsiveness even more!

 In
> all cases to the detriment of all other applications running.
> In the OS/2 world the operating system makes sure the app gets
> the cpu it needs.
>
> Anyhow I appreciate your responces regarding improving the WPS.
> Perhaps we can talk some of the developers of the BEOS to look
> into it?
>

Interesting idea: Would you think they would bother about improvements
for a "competing" (of course not actively...) OS while having all hands
full of work with looking for their own baby?

Greetings,

Cornelis Bockemhl <cbockem@datacomm.ch>
Author of "PmAs - Astronomy for the Presentation Manager"
http://www.datacomm.ch/cobo




Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  19-Nov-99 07:01:06
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 10:23:02
Subj: Re: Tholen digest, volume 245150236797.3325^-9999999999999999999

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

Tholen's still at his infantile game, and, amazingly enough, apparently
expects responses to his computer-generated "baby-talk tripe" ( countless
times!).  Meanwhile he continues to ignore the fact that the referenced
AbstractMethodError.class and ZipOutputStream.class happen to be in
classes.zip, which destroys the claptrap argument that he, has been trying
to use. Below, a summary of everything useful Tholen's ever uttered on
uselessnet, his job:

[Where are they?  Why, nowhere to be seen!]

There you have it, useless Tholen for Friday, 19 November 1999!



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jmalloy@borg.com                                  19-Nov-99 07:06:02
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 10:23:02
Subj: Re: Tholen 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind the eight ball again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <jmalloy@borg.com>

Well, as usual, you delete all text that makes you look like the fool you
are.  Unfortunately, you donn't respond to questions posed by your opponents
either.  Indeed, you didn't respond to anything.  You simply reposted the
article.  Why bother, Tholen?  Just to claim that you haven't simply deleted
the two simple tests every single time?



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: matt.spamblows.vaughn@mindspring...               19-Nov-99 07:18:25
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 14:29:29
Subj: Re: The Microsnot PR Quiz

Message sender: matt.spamblows.vaughn@mindspring.com

From: matt.spamblows.vaughn@mindspring.com (M. Vaughn)

In article <wE7Z3.24730$zd.261134@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com>, "Brent
Davies" <brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com> wrote:

> M. Vaughn <matt.spamblows.vaughn@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:matt.spamblows.vaughn-1811990654080001@pool-209-138-154-091-ipls.grid.n
> et...
> | In article <WhPY3.23950$zd.249695@news1.alsv1.occa.home.com>, "Brent
> | Davies" <brentdaviesNOSPAM@home.com> wrote:
> |
> [snip]
> | >
> | > If I was getting paid by MS to be here, it wouldn't be to talk to the
> likes
> | > of you.
> | >
> | > -B
> |
> | Ooh, I'm stinging from the pain of that slap. Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! Wait, that
> | was *kinda nice*.  So, um, thank you sir, may I have another?
> 
> "Usenet.  You will never find a more retched hive of scum
> and villainy."
> 
> -B

You really don't think I'm a species of pond scum or some villanous
scoundrel having never met me, do you?  Come, come, now...

:-P

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Lightyear Media (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lucien@metrowerks.com                             19-Nov-99 13:33:01
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 14:29:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: lucien@metrowerks.com

In article <8126ab$b73$4@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> >>> This does not answer the question.
>
> >> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't answered the
questions
> >> contained in the two simple tests or in the more recent analogy.
>
> > Answer the question put to you:
>
> Take the two simple tests, Lucien.

Note the refusal to answer a basic, central question - looks like we've
hit another major soft spot.

Your reticence to answer shall be interpreted as a concession to my
argument, and further refusal will only reinforce that accusation.

You may override this interpretation by answering the question:

According to your statement, under what conditions does "implements"
"....allow for either 'some' or 'all' functionality..."?

Here is your statement again.

"The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
information."

Lucien S.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: malstrom@lessing.oit.umass.edu                    19-Nov-99 08:41:10
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 14:29:29
Subj: Re: Public awareness week - ebay is allowing illegal activities to occu

From: Jason <malstrom@lessing.oit.umass.edu>

JNiffen <JNiffen@IBM.Net> wrote:
: Tim Smith wrote:
:> 
:> On Sat, 13 Nov 1999 10:59:15 -0600, Kelly Robinson <ispy@groovyshow.com>
wrote:
:> >I have talked to ebay once and got blown off.  I have recently sent them
:> 
:> If you were as confused and rambling and unfocused in your letter to them
:> as you were in your posting here, they probably simply concluded that you
:> were someone who had gone off your medication.
:> 
:> --Tim Smith

: I will agree the individual did go on a bit too, much but that crack was
: uncalled for.

Actually, I feel it was pretty accurate discription of what probably 
happened.  Ebay probably gets a lot of complaints each day, many of them 
complaining about aliens controlling the bidding, and they probably 
delete upwards of 80% of them on first read.  

-Jason

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jimf@frostbytes.com                               19-Nov-99 09:10:19
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 14:29:29
Subj: Re: THE VERSION OF OS/2 WARP 4 THAT CAN RUN WINDOWS 95 >>YES IT DOES 

From: Jim Frost <jimf@frostbytes.com>

pcguido@attglobal.net wrote:
> Not to point out the obvious or anything; but, he
> wants OS/2 to run Win95, not his PC.i
> 
> Give-it-up, won't happen for a number of reasons.

It could certainly be done given a robust enough VDM.  VMWare sells such a
thing for Linux; it even runs NT.

> 2. (Business Reasons) Investment Protection

Is this more or less valuable than being able to drop maintenance on the OS/2
codebase?

> 3. (Legal) MS vs DOJ
> 
> IBM is not stupid enough to try to prove to the DOJ that
> there _is_ a way around the MS monopoly.

The ability to run Win9x under OS/2 doesn't circumvent the monopoly.  If
anything it helps support it.

jim

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Road Runner (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: isxios@yahoo.com                                  19-Nov-99 14:14:26
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 14:29:29
Subj: Re: First look at BEOS

From: isxios@yahoo.com (Isxios)

On Thu, 18 Nov 1999 05:39:29, David H. McCoy <forgitaboutit@fake.com> 
wrote:

> Only OS/2 users would even try to say that Linux multitasking is clunky 
> compared to Linux or that OS/2 is more stable than Linux.
>  
> You guys are in a dreamworld.
> 

I have used many Operating Systems, and to be honest, I agree with the
idea that Linux is a bit clunky, but not as bad as the original poster
seems to imply. As for BeOS, I prefer it to Linux and Windows, but 
have found Warp to be the superior of all of them in most areas. 

The one area that Linux does seem to shine is in its support for 
multiple processors, multiple users, and for its application as a 
network OS. Yes, I think OS/2 is better than any other OS I have used 
to date, but for somethings, Linux can't be beat, not to mention that 
it has a great price. And, of course, Linux continues to grow and 
develope while Warp will become obsolete if IBM refuses to continue 
its developement.

Hector

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: bCandid - Powering the world's discussions - http
(1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: rstucke@aloha.net                                 19-Nov-99 06:51:08
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 16:52:01
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: "Roger W. Stucke" <rstucke@aloha.net>

"Mike Stephen" <mike@lionsgate.com> wrote
|
| Obsessed?  All I want is an operating system that at least meets my
| needs.  Windows certainly doesn't, and I was hoping BEOS did.  It
| doesn't either.  I do wish someone out there would adapt the SOM/DSOM
| model and incorporate it into a GUI like the WPS.  I do not need it to
| look like the WPS, just act like it.  At least I consider BEOS a lot
| better than Windows NT.  However it still is no match for Warp OS/2.
| I can demonstrate it any time for anyone who wishes.  Just send me a
| note when you are in Vancouver.  I have both operating systems
| installed and can demontrate those same two mpg files in both BEOS and
| OS/2.  You can decide which operating system can handle the two MPGS
| better.
|
|

FWIW, I just had four MPEG video clips running on my Windows 2000 desktop
(this
is RC2, which still has debug code in it) with *no* degradation whatsoever. 
So
if that's what you need to do with an operating system, you don't have long to
wait.  BTW, I've seen demos of multiple videos on the desktop with many
operating systems including AIX, NextOS and MacOS.  I don't know about BeOS
yet,
since Amazon just shipped my copy yesterday.

In an earlier message you mentioned that you taught classes on OS/2 and that
it
took months to learn how to fully utilize the WPS.  I think you've made the
point for part of why it failed, since IBM geared it toward the techies
working
in the MIS organizations (of which I was one), and not the average user.  I
owned copies of OS/2 through Warp 2.0, and in my opinion they didn't hold a
candle to Windows 2000.

Some of us need to run current applications to get our work done, and help
others do the same.  OS/2 advocates seem too focused on the operating system
itself, which is ironic because ease of use was suppose to be one of it's
strengths.  For what, running multiple videos?  It's time to smell the roses
and
move on.


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           19-Nov-99 12:19:29
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 16:52:01
Subj: Re: Why can't it die?

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <zozo82v3cb.6u.uno@sage.40th.com>, on 11/15/99 at 05:35 AM,
   uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com) said:

> At least there are "software writers to rewrite" around.  After all, new
> features need new code.  Let's see, the last new
> feature added to OS2 was...hm, there have been no new features added to
> OS2.  Well, that certainly takes care of that little problem of not
> having anyone around to do new code.

Obviously written by a lemming with penis envy and who has never seen Warp
Server for eBusiness, Netscape 4.61, etc.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           19-Nov-99 12:25:06
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 16:52:01
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <811o8m$f41$1@news.jump.net>, on 11/18/99 at 02:39 PM,
   "Chad Myers" <cmyers@austin.rr.com> said:

> In the case of a Civil trial, at least, a regular corporation (schedule
> S, I think it's called), the corporation, itself, is an individual that
> will stand trial in civil matters and take the hit for creditors and
> debtors should fines or judgements be levied against the corporation. It
> abstracts individuals so that no one person's personal property can be
> levied.

Generally true. However, if fraud can be shown to be pervasive throughout
the corporation or that it consciously violated the law, that protection
can be and has been pierced. There are many covictions for bankruptcy
fraud in recent history where the officers/directors/executives, etc. went
jail and had their assets siezed for their activities. A recent case in
Philadelphia resulted in the total seizure of all assets of a guy and his
wife and daughter who ran a Ponzi scheme which defrauded major and not so
major colleges and universities out of millions of dollars. Hubby went to
jail. Mom and adult daughter were evicted from their homes which were
forfeited along with cars, jewelry, furs, china, appliances, etc. Mom and
kid emerged with no jail time but no money and in reality only the clothes
on their back plus a few changes.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           19-Nov-99 12:55:01
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 16:52:01
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <80qf52$539$1@news.campuscwix.net>, on 11/15/99 at 06:24 PM,
   "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> said:

> Under law in the United States a Corporation cannot be held criminally
> liable for anything.  Only people can.

Haven't done much reading about the tobacco suits have you?

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: lucien@metrowerks.com                             19-Nov-99 17:23:10
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 16:52:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: lucien@metrowerks.com

In article <8126f6$b73$5@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

See message 225.

Lucien S.

> Lucien writes:
>
> [nothing new]
>
> Well, for once you didn't delete the two simple tests.  Unfortunately,
> you didn't respond to them either.  Indeed, you didn't respond to
> anything.  You simply reposted the article.  Why bother, Lucien?  Just
> to claim that you haven't simply deleted the two simple tests every
> single time?
>
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           19-Nov-99 12:31:07
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 16:52:01
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <38322D04.6027B5E8@stny.rr.com>, on 11/16/99 at 11:20 PM,
   Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com> said:


> Corporations are their own "people" under the law.  This does shield the
> employees, but it's the law.  That's one of the big advantages to being
> incorporated over having a proprietorship.  If a proprietor goes
> bankrupt, his/her credit rating is ruined and his/her personal property
> is confiscated to pay off remaining debts.  Not so when corporations go
> bankrupt.

Provided only that the bankruptcy results from inept management, market
conditions outside the control, accidental fire, flood, earthquake, etc.
However, if the bankruptcy is the result of criminal activity which
includes breaches of the criminal statues of the anti-trust laws, what you
say is untrue. If for example, the organization is shown to be a Racketeer
Influenced Corrupt Organization, officers, directors, executives, and
employees who *knowingly* aided and abetted the criminal acts can be held
criminally and civilly liable to those harmed.

Stockholders who were not active employees or directors of the company are
subject only to loss of their investment. However, if fraud is proven,
they can become plaintiffs against the illgotten gains of the guilty
parties.

Take a case far closer to legal "ripeness" than the MS suit. I am talking
about Rite-Aid, the drugstore chain which announced that is published
results for the last several years need to be restated due to
"irregularities". Had a Mr. Green (forget his first name) who invested
half a billion dollars within the past few months not stepped up to the
plate with another 300 grand and agreed to take over management, Rite Aid
would have had to file for bankruptcy. Since Green relied upon certified
financial statements of the company prepared by employees under the
supervision of the now former CEO and attested to by the independent
auditors when he made the initial investment, he could have sued the
individuals responsible including the accountants and would have won.
Despite the fact that investing more and taking over may well be in his
own words in a CNN interview "tossing good money after bad" he felt that
the underlying business offered him his best chance of greatest recovery.

Every other stockholder who bought a share or shares in Rite Aid once the
fraud began has a right to sue as well. Depending on the type and level of
involvement, officers, directors, and/or employees may be subject to
criminal as well as civil punishment.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           19-Nov-99 12:44:28
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 16:52:01
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <3833a99a.3261158@news.borg.com>, on 11/16/99 at 07:06 PM,
   jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt) said:

> You phony, 65+ year old alleged computer consultants sure can't properly
> setup a kill file.

> Why don't you call that 20-something year old tech at Dell who has to
> put computers together for you, and ask him if he'll help you figure out
> how to get your killfile working (as you claimed that you had)?

Well, asshole, for the past 6 days, I have been travelling. I failed to
set up the killfile on my notebook. Thanks for reminding me.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com                           19-Nov-99 12:46:21
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 16:52:01
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com>

On <38316965.A37A7DB0@frostbytes.com>, on 11/16/99 at 09:25 AM,
   Jim Frost <jimf@frostbytes.com> said:

> Pfft.  OS/2 is not commercially viable anymore.  The only reason IBM is
> still supporting it is that they have a lot of existing customers who
> will be pissed-off if they drop it cold, and those customers buy a lot
> of AS/400s.

That is your opinion. You are entitled to it. That is is totally invalid
has no bearing on your right to hold and express it. Of course, it shows
the world what an idiot you are.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
Aut Pax Aut Bellum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com                          19-Nov-99 19:33:04
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 16:52:02
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: jglatt@spamgone-borg.com (Jeff Glatt)

>>Jeff Glatt
>>You phony, 65+ year old alleged computer consultants sure can't properly
>>setup a kill file.

>> Why don't you call that 20-something year old tech at Dell who has to
>> put computers together for you, and ask him if he'll help you figure out
>> how to get your killfile working (as you claimed that you had)?

>Bob Germer
>I failed to set up the killfile on my notebook.

The Dell technician should be able to help you with that too.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com                             19-Nov-99 18:47:13
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 16:52:02
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451502

From: cbass2112@my-deja.com

In article <812tsi$sbo$1@news.hawaii.edu>,
  tholenantispam@hawaii.edu wrote:

-- snip --

> Meanwhile he continues to ignore the fact that the referenced
> AbstractMethodError.class and ZipOutputStream.class happen
> to be in classes.zip, which destroys the argument that he, Bass, and
> Timbol have been trying to use.

Typical pontification.

-- snip --

> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of
> this?"
>
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

Dave pastes in this response a total of thirteen (!) times.

-- snip --

> 3> Tholen is still avoiding all issues presented and accusing me of
> 3> playing an infantile game.  Even he seems to be tiring of his own
> 3> vaudeville routines, as he hasn't even responded with his Eliza
> 3> quotes and "warning".  Too bad he hasn't gotten tired enough to
> 3> face reality and admit his mistakes, but no one expects him to
> 3> anyway.  Here's the growing list of things to which he hasn't
> 3> responded:
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response
>
> 3> Note: no response

Dave has clearly gone off the deep end (again).  He snips the issues
that he *didn't* respond to, without indicating his snipage, yet keeps
the "Note: no response" intact, thirty five (!) times.



Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Deja.com - Before you buy. (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: andrew@netneurotic.de                             19-Nov-99 21:00:17
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 16:52:02
Subj: Re: OS/2 on large hard disks

From: andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm)

<pcguido@attglobal.net> wrote:

> Go ask in comp.os.os2.setup.storage, fool.

Question has already been answered, thank god by more intelligent people
than yourself, my friend.

This was the dumbest answer I got, really.

> 
> In <1e1eiua.1ldcxd81mairrgN@dialup-385.germany.ecore.net>,
> andrew@netneurotic.de (Andrew J. Brehm) writes: |Somebody sent the
> required file to me a month ago, but I seem to have |lost it. Now I have
> finally found the time to install OS/2 once again on |my Intel machine.
> Looking for the right link on the IBM website I found |nothing. Could
> somebody point me to the right file please? | |-- |Fan of Woody Allen
> |User of MacOS, BeOS, LinuxPPC |Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza


-- 
Fan of Woody Allen
User of MacOS, BeOS, LinuxPPC
Supporter of Pepperoni Pizza

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Origin Line 1 Goes Here (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org                      19-Nov-99 13:33:06
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 20:18:03
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org>

Bob Germer <bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com> wrote in message
news:38358f11$13$obot$mr2ice@news.pics.com...
> On <80qf52$539$1@news.campuscwix.net>, on 11/15/99 at 06:24 PM,
>    "Chad Mulligan" <cmulligan@hipcrime.vocab.org> said:
>
> > Under law in the United States a Corporation cannot be held criminally
> > liable for anything.  Only people can.
>
> Haven't done much reading about the tobacco suits have you?
>

THey aren't being held criminally just civilly

> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: bobg@Pics.com
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
> MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
> Aut Pax Aut Bellum
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
>


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CampusCWIX (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mike@lionsgate.com                                19-Nov-99 22:35:02
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 21:29:19
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: mike@lionsgate.com (Mike Stephen)

In message <383563be@news.hawaii.rr.com> - "Roger W. Stucke"
<rstucke@aloha.net> writes:
:>
:>
:>"Mike Stephen" <mike@lionsgate.com> wrote
:>|
:>| Obsessed?  All I want is an operating system that at least meets my
:>| needs.  Windows certainly doesn't, and I was hoping BEOS did.  It
:>| doesn't either.  I do wish someone out there would adapt the SOM/DSOM
:>| model and incorporate it into a GUI like the WPS.  I do not need it to
:>| look like the WPS, just act like it.  At least I consider BEOS a lot
:>| better than Windows NT.  However it still is no match for Warp OS/2.
:>| I can demonstrate it any time for anyone who wishes.  Just send me a
:>| note when you are in Vancouver.  I have both operating systems
:>| installed and can demontrate those same two mpg files in both BEOS and
:>| OS/2.  You can decide which operating system can handle the two MPGS
:>| better.
:>|
:>|
:>
:>FWIW, I just had four MPEG video clips running on my Windows 2000 desktop
(this
:>is RC2, which still has debug code in it) with *no* degradation whatsoever.  
So
:>if that's what you need to do with an operating system, you don't have long
to
:>wait.  BTW, I've seen demos of multiple videos on the desktop with many
:>operating systems including AIX, NextOS and MacOS.  I don't know about BeOS
yet,
:>since Amazon just shipped my copy yesterday.
:>
:>In an earlier message you mentioned that you taught classes on OS/2 and that 
it
:>took months to learn how to fully utilize the WPS.  I think you've made the
:>point for part of why it failed, since IBM geared it toward the techies
working
:>in the MIS organizations (of which I was one), and not the average user.  I
:>owned copies of OS/2 through Warp 2.0, and in my opinion they didn't hold a
:>candle to Windows 2000.
:>
:>Some of us need to run current applications to get our work done, and help
:>others do the same.  OS/2 advocates seem too focused on the operating system
:>itself, which is ironic because ease of use was suppose to be one of it's
:>strengths.  For what, running multiple videos?  It's time to smell the roses 
and
:>move on.
:>
:>


I have the latest win 2000 here, and it dosen't run more than 2 mpegs
without slowdown.  Must be a different version than you run.  I hate
the multitasking of all the windows os's. I use windows NT and now
2000 to show people how not to make an operating system multitask. 
BEOS is much more fluid than Windows, and OS/2 is much more fluid than
BEOS.  I guess you wern't in any of my classes. BTW I started teaching
IBM employees after OS/2 2.1.  I started to use OS/2 version 1.0 then
1.1 1.2, 1.3, 2.0, 2.1, 2.11, 3.0 and 4.0.  does that impress you? 
Certainly as much as your posting impressed me......

If you read my oposting correctly, I mentioned that most users (who do
not read manuals or the help files) would take months to find all the
inner workings of the WPS.  As a teacher, I crammed it all into 3
days.  Without a teacher and without reading prolificly, it would take
a lot of time to learn the WPS.  The operating system was designed for
MIS leaders so they could easily support the end users.  It ended up
to be tooo complicated for the average MIS dept leaders.  They needed
simpler systems that they themselves could understand.  Now they are
stuck with it  While in most cases the problem would have been solved
with proper training of the MIS staff.

But that is no reason to suggest the higher level computer users
should discard OS/2 and work with a lessor operating system.  It is
ironic you mention the multiple videos as if noone needed to run
them....  It was only 4 years ago that the Windows weenies said "What
would you want to run more than 3-4 apps at the same time for?  Why do
I need OS/2?  My Win 3.1 is just fine for now and the future."

HAHAHA What comes around goes around....

I am actually looking for an OS/2 replacement for me.  I have yet to
find it.




--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: M Stephen Contracting (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: mamodeo@stny.rr.com                               19-Nov-99 18:31:02
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 21:29:19
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451502

From: Marty <mamodeo@stny.rr.com>

"Well, it was too good to last."  Looks like Tholen's broken record has
resumed
skipping again at the infantile "wrath" part of the vaudeville routine. 
Amazingly enough, he can repost the same "baby-talk tripe" (by his own
admission) in lieu of a response and somehow feel that he has acted logically
and is justified.  Meanwhile he continues to ignore the fact that the
referenced AbstractMethodError.class and ZipOutputStream.class happen to be in
classes.zip, which can be viewed in WinZip while viewing JAVAINUF.EXE, without
extracting classes.zip, through a simple double-click operation.  He also
continues to ignore the fact that Timbol referred to classes.zip as being
compressed, which limits the context of his comment to that of viewing
JAVAINUF.EXE, and which destroys all of the arguments based on his
misinterpretation that he, alone, has been trying to use.  As a last attempt
to
help Dave through his mental problems, with his best interests at heart, I
have
employed the use of Dr. Sbaitso.  Here's what the good doctor has to say:

Dave Tholen wrote:
> 
> Marty's still at his "infantile game", and, amazingly enough, apparently 
> expects responses to his computer-generated "baby-talk tripe" (thirty-five
> times!).

DO YOU THINK MACHINES HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH YOUR PROBLEM?

> Meanwhile he continues to ignore the fact that the referenced 
> AbstractMethodError.class and ZipOutputStream.class happen to be in 
> classes.zip, which destroys the argument that he, Bass, and Timbol have 
> been trying to use.

SAY SOMETHING SENSIBLE PLEASE

> 1> No need.  It's being shown clear as day below:
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

SAME TO YOU!

> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

FORGET ABOUT ME, I AM MORE CONCERN OF YOU

> 1> Note that the above snippet was taken out of the context of the
> 1> paragraph in which it resides.  Here is the above snippet placed
> 1> back in context:
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

[Note that it was again taken out of context and all surrounding supporting
text was deleted.  No surprise there.  What a coward!]

> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.

(Seems like even the good doctor is getting tired of Dave's vaudeville
routine.)

> 1> Notice how statistics on its compression ratio are given.  Also
> 1> notice that classes.zip has no compression internal to itself as
> 1> I have demonstrated in the past and anyone with said file can easily
> 1> verify.  Therefore, the only context in which one can examine
> 1> classes.zip and refer to it as being compressed is in the context of
> 1> the file residing within JAVAINUF.EXE.  Notice how Dave conveniently
> 1> left this piece of information out when he quoted Mike.  How dishonest,
> 1> but that's par for the course for Tholen.  Notice also that Tholen has
> 1> failed to address this issue after the numerous times I've presented
> 1> it to him and instead hides behind his baseless accusations of playing
> 1> an infantile game or his Eliza non-responses.  I guess he just doesn't
> 1> have the courage to admit he is wrong yet again.  No surprise there.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.

> 1> Amazing how Dave thinks he's fooling anyone.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.

> 2> How embarrassing.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.

> 2> That answers that question.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.

> 2> How embarrassing.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.

> 2> Indeed.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.

> 2> Apparently Dave wants Curtis to have it his way.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.

> 2> Does Dave enjoy talking to himself and answering his own questions?
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.

> 2> How embarrassing.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.

> 2> Too bad javainuf.exe has nothing to do with WinZip being superior to
> 2> InfoZip.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.

> 2> Further evidence is not needed.
> 
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

PLEASE DON'T REPEAT.

> 3> Tholen is still avoiding all issues presented and accusing me of
> 3> playing an infantile game.  Even he seems to be tiring of his own
> 3> vaudeville routines, as he hasn't even responded with his Eliza
> 3> quotes and "warning".  Too bad he hasn't gotten tired enough to
> 3> face reality and admit his mistakes, but no one expects him to
> 3> anyway.  Here's the growing list of things to which he hasn't
> 3> responded:

[Note that all of the text following this point has been dishonestly deleted
by
Tholen and he has not responded to it.  No surprise there.  How hypocritical
and cowardly of him to go back to hiding behind his infantile "wrath" game.]

> 1> And speaking of parrot responses, here's a smathering of more of Dave's
> 1> hypocrisy from just the few posts of his that I bothered to scan today:

[Note: the following embarrassing text was dishonestly deleted]
MT> You're full of shit, Dave:
DT> Balderdash, Mike.  You're the one full of it.

MT> Try and keep up.
DT> How ironic, coming from the person who isn't keeping up.

MT> leading you to draw that wrong conclusion. 
DT> How ironic, coming from the person who made a wrong conclusion

MT> You aren't fooling anybody.
DT> Irrelevant, given that I'm not trying to fool anybody, Mike.

MT> When you keep arguing points that you've clearly lost, you only make
MT> yourself look even more pathetic.
DT> How ironic, coming from someone who looks even more pathetic.

> 1> Tholen want a cracker?

Note: no response

> 1> What's unfortunate is that Tholen doesn't realize that he is finding
> 1> his own behavior irksome and counterproductive.  How embarassing!  And
> 1> despite the evidence I've presented, he still claims that I have no basis
> 1> for saying that he's playing an "infantile game".  Here's what Dr.
Sbaitso
> 1> has to say today, in an attempt to help Tholen work through his mental
> 1> distresses:

Note: no response

> 1> MUST BE SOMEONE ELSE

Note: no response

> 1> BUT YOU COULD BE RIGHT

Note: no response

> 1> WHAT ARE YOUR REAL PROBLEMS?

Note: no response

[Note: the following embarrassing text was dishonestly deleted]
> 1> Dave, stupidly as usual, continues to ignore the fact that Mike
> 1> referred to classes.zip as being compressed.  The only way he could
> 1> view classes.zip as being compressed is if it were inside of
> 1> JAVAINUF.EXE because the classes.zip file itself has 0% compression
> 1> as I have shown in the past.  Too bad Dave doesn't let facts get in
> 1> the way of his fantasy world.

Note: no response

[Note: the following embarrassing text was dishonestly deleted]
> 2> Kinda like Tholen "shouting" that I'm playing an infantile game over
> 2> and over again without any basis.

Note: no response
 
[Note: the following embarrassing text was dishonestly deleted]
> 3> Consistent with Tholen's recent justification for his snippage:
> 1> Note: text omitted from original article
> 3> I am deleting all but the most recent new text.
 
Note: no response

[Note: the following embarrassing text was dishonestly deleted]
> 3> If anyone doubts that Dave is playing an "infantile game" after
> 3> reading today's digest, please let him know.  He'll probably try
> 3> to use the fact that no one has contacted him as evidence of a
> 3> general agreement between himself and "his readers", however to
> 3> use his own words, he "would be unlikely to obtain a statistically
> 3> significant sample".  What will be obvious from reading the digest
> 3> is the fact that Dave hasn't responded to any articles with anything
> 3> of value.  This has come to be expected from him, however, and should
> 3> not be a surprise to anyone.

Note: no response
 
[Note: the following embarrassing text was dishonestly deleted]
> 3> It seems he got his infantile wrath out of his system (after warning
> 3> me "about going down that path"), and has resumed taking my statements
> 3> completely out of context and responding to them inappropriately.
> 3> Again, no surprise for those who have read a few of Tholen's postings.

Note: no response
 
[Note: the following embarrassing text was dishonestly deleted]
> 3> Here's today's digest, with appropriate commentary by Dr. Sbaitso
> 3> version 1.01 by Creative Labs:> 1> Note: no response

Note: no response

> 3> DON'T STAND ON CEREMONY

Note: no response

> 3> WHAT IS IT THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW?

Note: no response

> 3> WHY DO YOU ASK THIS QUESTION?

Note: no response

> 3> IT IS HARD TO EXPLAIN DAVE THOLEN

Note: no response

> 3> I KNOW YOUR NAME IS DAVE THOLEN, THAT'S ALL

Note: no response

> 3> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOU

Note: no response

> 3> AH , WHAT KIND OF ANSWER WOULD PLEASE YOU THE MOST?

Note: no response

DAVE THOLEN, IT IS SO NICE TALKING TO YOU, BYE! 

Note: no response
 
> 1> DAVE THOLEN, IT IS SO NICE TALKING TO YOU, BYE!

Note: no response
 
> 2> Dave Tholen wrote (using a more powerful "brain" than his again):

Note: no response
 
> 2> YOU'D BETTER WATCH OUT FOR YOUR PLANS HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS.

Note: no response
 
> 2> DAVE THOLEN, I NEED MORE COMPUTING POWER TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION

Note: no response
 
> 2> WHAT DO YOU THINK?

Note: no response
 
> 2> FORGET ABOUT ME, I AM MORE CONCERN OF YOU

Note: no response
 
> 2> DOES IT PLEASE YOU TO BELIEVE THAT I AM GOING THROUGH ALL THIS?

Note: no response
 
> 2> I AM NOT SURE IF I AM SURE THAT THOSE AM ELIZA'S?

Note: no response
 
> 2> MY PLANS HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH THIS. IS NOT OF YOUR CONCERN

Note: no response
 
> 2> WHAT IS IT THAT YOU REALLY WANT TO KNOW?

Note: no response
 
> 2> HOW DO YOU KNOW?

Note: no response
 
> 2> ARE YOU REALLY TALKING ABOUT ME?

Note: no response
 
> 2> YOU'VE SAID THAT - PLEASE GIVE MORE INFORMATION.

Note: no response
 
> 2> WHY ARE YOU SO INTERESTED IN WHETHER I AM SURE THAT THOSE AM ELIZA'S?

Note: no response
 
> 2> WHY THE UNCERTAIN TONE ?

Note: no response
 
> 2> I AM NOT INTERESTING, ASK ME ABOUT SOME OTHER THINGS INSTEAD

Note: no response

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: fmarchand@iname.com                               20-Nov-99 00:50:09
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 21:29:19
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: Frederic Marchand <fmarchand@iname.com>

Mike Stephen wrote:
> 
> But that is no reason to suggest the higher level computer users
> should discard OS/2 and work with a lessor operating system.  It is
> ironic you mention the multiple videos as if noone needed to run
> them....  It was only 4 years ago that the Windows weenies said "What
> would you want to run more than 3-4 apps at the same time for?

  That makes me think of a little story from Comdex :

  "The Alt.OS Video booth at Comdex demonstrated a high-resolution movie
rendered entirely in Bryce for BeOS, which took more than 36 hours to
render on Be engineer Adam Haberlach's machine (a still frame from the
movie can be seen at BeDope). According to Kimpton, Haberlach continued
to use BeOS normally for all of his development needs as the rendering
continued in the background, without affecting the machine's performance
(testament to the real-world usefulness of a pervasively multithreaded
environmnet)."

  That's this sort of things I like with BeOS...

-- 
 Frederic Marchand
 BeOS Developer E-14363
 http://fmarchand.free.fr/

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Guest of ProXad - France (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: josco@sea.monterey.edu                            19-Nov-99 16:57:11
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 21:29:19
Subj: Re: Why can't it die?

From: josco <josco@sea.monterey.edu>

On 20 Nov 1999, uno@40th.com wrote:

> 
> Bob Germer? (bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com?) wrote (Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:19:59
-0500):
> >Obviously written by a lemming with penis envy and who has never seen Warp
> >Server for eBusiness
> 
> And no one will.  If you want to pay up to IBM to the tune of 1000s of
> dollars just to run an OS, for the sake of runing an OS, then happy
> OS running.  I use an OS to run apps.  Apps are where it's at for those
> that do real work in this world.

That's a wierd way to look at the world.  
Who gets paid to run apps?  The more wordprocessors I own, the more work I
do.....wierd.

PCs are productivty tools.  The productivty is measured by work, not apps.
The PC manipulates DATA.  How many wordprocessors does MS make?  ONE.
Spreadsheets?  ONE.  Browsers? ONE.  Presentations packages? ONE.

Try counting to ONE.  That's the number needed by Microsoft bigots and the
number needed by OS/2 users.  

Once the truth is acknowledged then the rest is an argument about
MS's brand name.  

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: CSUnet (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu                         20-Nov-99 00:55:14
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 21:29:19
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451502

From: tholenantispam@hawaii.edu (Dave Tholen)

Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:

CB] They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread,
CB] and could have gone back to said previous posts were they so inclined.

I am deleting all but the most recent new text.

Curtis Bass writes:

> Typical pontification.

Do you even know what "pontification" is, Curtis?  Apparently not, given
that the inclusion of evidence disallows the description of the statement
as "pontification".

> Dave pastes in this response a total of thirteen (!) times.

There were thirteen remarks from Marty to which to respond, Curtis.

> Dave has clearly gone off the deep end (again).

Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.  Now, that's what you
can call "pontification".

> He snips the issues that he *didn't* respond to,

What alleged "issues", Curtis?  Marty is simply playing his "infantile
game'.  There are no "issues" for him.

> without indicating his snipage, yet keeps the "Note: no response"
> intact, thirty five (!) times.

There were thirty five occurrences, Curtis.  Why shouldn't I leave
intact the evidence for Marty's "infantile game"?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IFA B-111 (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

From: uno@40th.com                                      20-Nov-99 00:10:28
  To: All                                               19-Nov-99 21:29:19
Subj: Re: Why can't it die?

From: uno@40th.com (uno@40th.com)

Bob Germer? (bobg.REMOVEME.@pics.com?) wrote (Fri, 19 Nov 1999 12:19:59
-0500):
>Obviously written by a lemming with penis envy and who has never seen Warp
>Server for eBusiness

And no one will.  If you want to pay up to IBM to the tune of 1000s of
dollars just to run an OS, for the sake of runing an OS, then happy
OS running.  I use an OS to run apps.  Apps are where it's at for those
that do real work in this world.  And, weird analogy, Bob -- I didn't
think I had you toasted yet.






--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Yanaguana (1:109/42)

+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+============================================================================+
