Re: micros~1 and apple (was Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling)
>Actually, they paid Apple for source code and the right to create a > derivative work. In fact, Windows is a derivative work of the MacOS. hm... i'm not going to say that that's incorrect because i don't know for sure, but i've never heard this before... i suppose it's possible. I will say...it is not correct. The whole reason Bill invested $100 Mil was to have access to the source for MacOS. And Win2K is the first Windows to have Mac code in it. Yes, he was attempting to copy Mac, but he could not get it...the code was missing. Also, all you M$ bashers for OS/2did not M$ have the right to kill OS/2, since they WROTE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, under agreement from IBM? __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
[issues] Re:Ofc2K (was: micros~1 and apple)
Outlook, to me, isn't very intuitive, *especially* some of the stuff they've done in the office 2000 version (speaking windows now)... click on "file" and you only get about half of the menu items, then when you hit the little "down arrow" at the bottom of the menu, things start appearing. They don't appear below the beginning menu items, they appear within those menu items and inverted-ish. UGH. Like that start menu thing where it doesn't alphabetize itself anymore and creates a similar "down arrow" to see the rest of it. ___- Those chevrons and expandable menus are supposed to adapt to keep the most commonly used items available. If you do not like it...you can disable it from preferences. But if you notice, use on item that is not on the main menu (under the chevrons), and the rest of the dropdowns will be expanded. Use that item several times, and it will be on the main menus next time you open the app. Also, the icons (toolbar) will adjust itself to your using habits. This can be a pain in the ass, as icons tend to move if you use lots of different things regularly (ie-as a REAL Power User) __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: micros~1 and apple (was Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling)
J B wrote: > Also, all you M$ bashers for OS/2did not M$ have the right to kill OS/2, > since they WROTE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, under agreement from IBM? By that argument, an architect has the right to bomb a building he designed, no? -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +64-21-870-425 ICQ: 5632563 or shout loudly [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re:Ofc2K (was: micros~1 and apple)
J B wrote: > > Those chevrons and expandable menus are supposed to adapt to keep the most > commonly used items available. If you do not like it...you can disable it > from preferences. But if you notice, use on item that is not on the main > menu (under the chevrons), and the rest of the dropdowns will be expanded. > Use that item several times, and it will be on the main menus next time you > open the app. Also, the icons (toolbar) will adjust itself to your using > habits. This can be a pain in the ass, as icons tend to move if you use > lots of different things regularly (ie-as a REAL Power User) Ahh! If they adapt, they are a little better. That was just my first glance while trying to help someone set up newsgroups from outlook :o) I wish the start menu would work the same way, in such case (create a standard for those chevron thingeys)... if you use certain groups more often, move them to the top. It'd be somewhat irritating until it figured out your patterns of usage (and if different people use your computer for different things). Can you turn off the icon "moving" thing? I'd imagine if it were truly customizable you would be able to... but you never know, sometimes microsoft (and other software vendors) thinks things are "intuitive" but they are just plain annoying (i.e. the paper clip). Another annoyance is the non-standards across platforms with different applications (well, specifically, Netscape). Menu items are in different locations (usually with the right click/option click menus), which can get really annoying if you move between platforms a lot. I believe mozilla is more standard across platforms, but I haven't yet tried the linux version so I'm not 100% sure. Personally, I like the power to turn things OFF ;o) -nicole [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: micros~1 and apple (was Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling)
On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, Neil ''Fred'' Picciotto wrote: > Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > > Actually, they paid Apple for source code and the right to create a > > derivative work. In fact, Windows is a derivative work of the MacOS. > > hm... i'm not going to say that that's incorrect because i don't know for > sure, but i've never heard this before... i suppose it's possible. They did indeed license it. > but i do know this: even if micros~1 paid for some of these things, they > *did* also illegally copy some other things from apple. This was almost a decade later. > apple threatened > to sue (i forget whether it was patent or copyright issues, or both), and > micros~1 responded by threatening to stop developing applications for > macintosh. Actually, Apple did sue. MS had used QuickTime code wholesale in their Media Player. > the whole thing wasn't resolved until two years ago when micros~1 invested > $150 million in apple Actually, that was liquidated damages for the lawsuit positioned as an "investment." -- _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net "Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator "That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: micros~1 and apple (was Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling)
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, J B wrote: > I will say...it is not correct. The whole reason Bill invested $100 > Mil was to have access to the source for MacOS. And Win2K is the first > Windows to have Mac code in it. Yes, he was attempting to copy Mac, > but he could not get it...the code was missing. This is NOT correct. In fact, prior to Windows 3.1, they couldn't have certain features like overlapping windows because the agreement with Apple forbade it. You have the WRONG DECADE! Sheesh. MS has had access to Apple's MacOS source *from the beginning.* That's how they pirated QuickTime to begin with. -- _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net "Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator "That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: micros~1 and apple (was Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling)
As J B stated: > Also, all you M$ bashers for OS/2did not M$ have the right to kill OS/2, > since they WROTE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, under agreement from IBM? It was a joint development effort. Hundreds or thousands of IBMers worked on it too, and IBM continued the development effort after MS stopped. If you want a real education in the MS monopoly talk to some of the IBM OS/2 developers on the stunts that MS pulled. Emily -- Emily Ratliff [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.ratliff.net/emily/ ---***--- "I can't complain but sometimes I still do. Life's been good to me so far." - Joe Walsh, "Life's Been Good" ---***--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re:Ofc2K (was: micros~1 and apple)
At 12:30 AM 11/09/1999 -0800, you wrote: > > >Can you turn off the icon "moving" thing? I'd imagine if it were truly >customizable you would be able to... but you never know, sometimes >microsoft (and other software vendors) thinks things are "intuitive" but >they are just plain annoying (i.e. the paper clip). > >Another annoyance is the non-standards across platforms with different >applications (well, specifically, Netscape). Menu items are in different >locations (usually with the right click/option click menus), which can >get really annoying if you move between platforms a lot. > >I believe mozilla is more standard across platforms, but I haven't yet >tried the linux version so I'm not 100% sure. > >Personally, I like the power to turn things OFF ;o) > If you are using Win 9X, you can do a lot of customisation with TweakUI -- an unsupported tool that MS programmers made on their own time to do a lot of the things power users want to do -- like get rid of useless bells and whistles. But, for a lot of the other Win9X irritants, you gotta use msconfig or do the Registry Hack -- my collected Registry Hack documentation now makes up a manual of its own, but I no longer have menus full of items I don't need, devices that load whether I want them or not, anything related to channels, active desktop or... Try going to the MS Knowledge Base -- a lot of the Registry Hacks are there if you are determined. And, If you have Win95 or 98 Gold (choke!) TweakUI is in the Powertoys directory on the CD.. Janus who also likes the power to get rid of clutter... [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling
> g>it run/installs on everything I own... (except for some 68000 macs I > still have) Check this out: http://www.mac.linux-m68k.org/ Deidre Calarco Robert Darvas Associates (734) 761-8713 (ext. 16) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] MS vs DOJ and capitalism....
At 12:23 AM 11/09/1999 -0800, you wrote: > >The biggest problem I see with your brand of libertarianism (the whole >anti-government/pro-capitalism schtick) is that it replaces the power of >the state with the power of the corporations. At least the state is >nominally under citizen control. We know the corporations aren't.. > One of the things I find funniest about the entire *modern* laissez-faire arguement (reganomics/Thatcherism/Mulronyism) is how close to Marxism it is in its fundamental assumption -- that the organisation of the economy (Marxist: substructure) determines the organisation of the polity (Marxist: superstructure). This is, in fact, what makes it "modern" -- and a far cry from what Adam Smith actually said. Mind you, there are good reasons for this change -- first, most of even the most prominent economists have never actually read Mr. Smith (they are densely written tome sin 200 year old English), and second, the academic radicalism of their education *was* Marxism, so that even the non-Marxist teachers were forced to argue within the terms of Marxist thought to attempt to debunk it. In fact, Adam Smith never believed in an unregulated economy (and, yes, I *have* read his works -- as a historian of a related topic, I had no choice!) -- even in "The Wealth of Nations" he is firm that, while leaving the economy as free *as possible*, the government *must* regulate the behaviour of companies to ensure that the rules remain fair, and that the non-economic values and needs of society are respected. These latter positions have gotten lost in the definition of laissez-faire, and capitalism, since (imho) they tend to be both more sophisticated than diagrams drawn on the back of napkins, and to interfere with the unfettered use of corporate power. What needs to be questioned is the assumption that the economy underlies all aspects of society. This is a pretty schematic, but, like all schematics, a simplification.What of ethical values? Can an economy (as some idealised independent thing) overcome, say, a socially-embedded revulsion against some institution it "requires"? Could the demands of an economy organised on the lines of modern laissez-faire principles force a society to reverting to widespread child labour? (This is not a far-fetched example -- I once sat in bemused amazement while an intelligent advocate of the modern laissez-faire economy "explained" to me that discrimination and child labour were matters of free choice in a properly run -- ie. unregulated -- economy. I decided he was right: in an *unregulated* economy, they are.!) I think the answer is no, and I think that is enough to debunk the entire principle of the economy as *necessary* organising principle for the rest of society. An economy does not exist outside the people who participate in it, and it cannot force on them behaviours that go against other, equally or more, deeply held principles and institutions. This leads to the conclusion that the various pro-MS arguements based on the "obvious" benefit to all of a completely unregulated monopoly fall flat on their nose when applied to any real world situation. If the benefit is not obvious to those who are supposed to be receiving it, perhaps becuase it clashes with other values and deemed benefits, then what benefit is there? After listening to many an end user/consumer on the topic of their actual MS applications, it seems to me that the *real* benefit MS could bend its mind to offering would be stable, simpler applications, perhaps packaged, not as one huge, integrated monster, but as a series of small applications to which one can buy the modular add-ons one needs. But, hey, isn't that the open source model?.. Janus (who, as you can by now tell, had *years* of academic training, and *loves* to share it!) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling
> IIRC, MS bought Excel from another company. It's possible that it was > already made for the Mac, but did they keep on updating it for the Mac? > I certainly didn't see it till 98, and I used Macs quite a bit back in > college. Also, Macs were very popular up till the 90s, making programs > for it made sense back in the 80s, especially since teh reason that > people chose IBM compatibles over Macs was the lack of busienss software. The Mac version of Excel had gone through at least five upgrades (the previous version was Excel 5.0) when Office '98 for the Mac was released. There had been a lull in upgrades in the mid to late nineties. Also, I'm pretty sure Excel for the Mac existed before Excel for Windows. Deidre Calarco Robert Darvas Associates (734) 761-8713 (ext. 16) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
Call me a stupid man, but what is a CMOTW? [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
suppose you ran MS and you had a choice of being ethical and get 85% of the OS market or else,NOT being ethical and getting 95% of the market and the lawsuit,which one would you choose ?? _ What is that 10%about $10 Billion? if you were worth $90Billion, what difference does it make? __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: micros~1 and apple (was Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling)
J B wrote: > Also, all you M$ bashers for OS/2did not M$ have the right to kill OS/2, > since they WROTE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, under agreement from IBM? >By that argument, an architect has the right to bomb a building he >designed, no? Nobut it would have died anyway...M$ would never have agreed to continue to update it, and IBM did not have the programming resources to support it. __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
Maybe what we really need (and I'm being serious) is to find a nice, supportive, pro-feminist mens list to send the confused ones to :) Vinnie Is there such a thing? Most of the men who are really interested in the issues will find a list such as this. (personally I came cuz of the Linux stuff...and stayed because the conversation is VERY enlightening) __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: micros~1 and apple (was Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling)
J.B, > > Also, all you M$ bashers for OS/2did not M$ have the right to kill OS/2, > since they WROTE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, under agreement from IBM? This is *not* accurate. They wrote versions 1.0 and 1.1 only, which were 16 bit. The later 32 bit versions were almost pure IBM. No, they did not have the right to kill and IBM product in the way they did. -Caity [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re:Ofc2K (was: micros~1 and apple)
I wish the start menu would work the same way, in such case (create a standard for those chevron thingeys)... if you use certain groups more often, move them to the top. It'd be somewhat irritating until it figured out your patterns of usage (and if different people use your computer for different things). Can you turn off the icon "moving" thing? I'd imagine if it were truly customizable you would be able to... but you never know, sometimes microsoft (and other software vendors) thinks things are "intuitive" but they are just plain annoying (i.e. the paper clip). - In office 2K...the "office assistant" is much better than in 97. He just takes some getting used to. In Win2K...the Start menu is the same as in Officeit adapts. It is really kinda neat. Makes the OS much more user friendly, and much less cluttered. The apps you use most are right there...but if you need another, click and up they pop. M$ has finally started listening to the SysAdmins and the Users, and is implementing some of our suggestions and fixing some of our gripes __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: micros~1 and apple (was Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling)
J.B., > > Nobut it would have died anyway...M$ would never have agreed to continue > to update it, and IBM did not have the programming resources to support it. This is flat out wrong. All the reasonable successful versions of OS/2 Warp were pure IBM. They did and do have the resources, and maintain several OSes, including AIX. -Caity [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
> > define ethical? if your saying that I can insure that I can get my > > operating system to be included with every PC by making a deal with > > vendors.. I think I would... is that unethical? > > ethical == not doing a hack to win 3.11 so it doesn't run on DR-DOS as Ok.. lets say hypothiticly I was the creator of Dos.. and I wanted everyone to run my program... so it would be easyer for me to sell my other applications.. don't you think I would try to write software that would create a higher cost of entry for other people? There is nothing "un-ethical" about being selfish.. > well as not coercing pc manufacturer to licence MS-DOS to be able to buy > windows, Ok.. if I owned windows and I owned dos... I should beable to sell my product as I see fit.. there is nothing un-ethical about that > and for doing deal with PC manufacturer,you could deal > fairly,i.e.if the manufacturer wanted to have 10% of his PC line running > on OS/2,he has the right to do so. the manufactur has the option not to do business with microsoft > > might include some background: > you see,at the time,there where lot of application available for > windows so MS could have a very good following,MS also had (and still > have) a very good relation with independant developpers, >the company > could have stood on it own without any illegal tactic and still enjoy a > very good market but they decided otherwise,with the amount of > development and research there,they could have stiffled a lot of > innovation (with the profit that come with it) but they choose not to > obey the 80/20 rule which mean in this case 80% of the market for 20% of > the effort,instead they choose to get the remaining 20% for 80% of the > effort (by 100%,i mean the windows users community,not the entire > computer users community). Umm I belive that microsoft would like to have 100% of the market, but they can't... there are more computing platforms in this world then I can hold in my head (look at the gcc makeable list to get a genral feel)... I've only gotten through part of the sherman anti trust act (haven't even gotten to the statement of facts yet).. but from what I understand of this is a company must fully be able to control a commodity in order to be considered a monopoly.. ie. if I owned all of the coal mines in the world.. and thus noone else was able to open a coal mine... Operating systems are not like that.. anyone can build the next OS.. or heck.. even create a new platform for a nother OS... > Alain Toussaint > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
ack more reading ;) thanks, Chris /"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.curious.org/ / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail"This quote is false." -anon On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Emily Ratliff wrote: > As curious stated: > > (I'm researching standard oil, the > > findings of fact from the judge, and some essays I found on each side of > > the microsoft issue) > While you're researching, study up on IBM's antitrust case: > > > http://www.essential.org/antitrust/ibm/ > > http://www.essential.org/antitrust/ms/1984ibmeu.html > > Emily > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re:Ofc2K (was: micros~1 and apple)
Personally this is what I want... Click on Start and have folders that open that say "Imaging", "Games", "office", "internet". Open up "internet" and see "Icq", "Netscape", "AIM", "WS_FTP"... etc. MS makes it EXTREMELY difficult to customize it how you want it. You can't get rid of the "Programs" folder, for one. I don't like having "README" and "Uninstall" and "Register now" things along side the links to the executables. In Win 95 you could just go and move the shortcuts around how you wanted (except not being able to delete Programs), but in Win98 it doesn't change when you manually try to change it, you have to go into the Registry as well! I don't want shortcuts to move around, I want them to stay where I put them, because once I get used to do ing it one way I don't want to have to go looking for things. I've seen the new W2k interface, it's rather kludgy, IMHO. Windows just keeps pissing me off, and the sooner that I can use my hardware and games with Linux the better. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
J B wrote: > > Maybe what we really need (and I'm being serious) is to find a nice, > supportive, pro-feminist mens list to send the confused ones to :) > > Vinnie > > Is there such a thing? Most of the men who are really interested in the > issues will find a list such as this. (personally I came cuz of the Linux > stuff...and stayed because the conversation is VERY enlightening) Maybe it needs to be made... Jenn V. -- Humans are the only species to feed and house entirely separate species for no reason other than the pleasure of their company. Why? [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jenn Vespermanhttp://www.simegen.com/~jenn/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: micros~1 and apple (was Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling)
> > Also, all you M$ bashers for OS/2did not M$ have the right to kill OS/2, > > since they WROTE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, under agreement from IBM? > > By that argument, an architect has the right to bomb a building he > designed, no? Things to remember -- creating does not give one the right to destroy. -- Aaron Malone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) System Administrator Poplar Bluff Internet, Inc. http://www.semo.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling
When I say 68000 macs I mean like the macplus.. last I checked mac 68k linux required atleast a 68030 or at the VERY least an mmu which the 68000 doesn't support.. or atleast the macplus motherboard doesn't support.. /"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.curious.org/ / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail"This quote is false." -anon On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Deidre L. Calarco wrote: > > g>it run/installs on everything I own... (except for some 68000 macs I > > still have) > > > Check this out: > http://www.mac.linux-m68k.org/ > > Deidre Calarco > Robert Darvas Associates > (734) 761-8713 (ext. 16) > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: micros~1 and apple (was Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling)
I am an ID-10-T. I guess I should learn to not believe the hype!... oh wellbeat me with a wet noodle. J.B., > > Nobut it would have died anyway...M$ would never have agreed to continue > to update it, and IBM did not have the programming resources to support it. This is flat out wrong. All the reasonable successful versions of OS/2 Warp were pure IBM. They did and do have the resources, and maintain several OSes, including AIX. -Caity [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re:Ofc2K (was: micros~1 and apple)
> Windows just keeps pissing me off, and the sooner that I can use my > hardware and games with Linux the better. what hardware do you have that you can't use? btw a great source of games is lokisoft www.lokisoft.com they have a newsgroup for recommendations.. also there are lots of sites that cover how to run common games in wine.. > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: micros~1 and apple (was Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling)
if the architect OWNS that building.. yes he has the right to blow it up.. /"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.curious.org/ / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail"This quote is false." -anon On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Aaron Malone wrote: > > > Also, all you M$ bashers for OS/2did not M$ have the right to kill OS/2, > > > since they WROTE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE, under agreement from IBM? > > > > By that argument, an architect has the right to bomb a building he > > designed, no? > > Things to remember -- creating does not give one the right to destroy. > > -- > Aaron Malone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > System Administrator > Poplar Bluff Internet, Inc. > http://www.semo.net > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
well how about guytalk here a linuxchix? /"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.curious.org/ / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail"This quote is false." -anon On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > J B wrote: > > > > Maybe what we really need (and I'm being serious) is to find a nice, > > supportive, pro-feminist mens list to send the confused ones to :) > > > > Vinnie > > > > Is there such a thing? Most of the men who are really interested in the > > issues will find a list such as this. (personally I came cuz of the Linux > > stuff...and stayed because the conversation is VERY enlightening) > > Maybe it needs to be made... > > > Jenn V. > -- > Humans are the only species to feed and house entirely separate species > for no reason other than the pleasure of their company. Why? > > [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jenn Vespermanhttp://www.simegen.com/~jenn/ > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
For curious: Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
Intro: Hi. I'm a lurker. Name's Amanda. Pleased to meet you. "Caitlyn M. Martin" wrote: >> Didn't someone, about a week ago, say that each week we get a CMOTW that >> dominates? On Mon, 8 Nov 1999, curious wrote: >I thought we had a healthy discussion... granted I was as up to speed as I >should have been... I don't think any discussion is pointless... *** >I tried very hard to reply to every response... *** (emphasis mine) Later on he writes: >don't think I dominated.. Curious: take this or leave this as you wish, but consider this. If there are more than two people in a discussion, and If at least one of them *replies to every response they see*... What are the possible outcomes? a) Each person responds to every message they see. The discussion grows exponentially. Each message gets n responses where there are n participants in the discussion. This is the standard newsgroup pattern, but this is not (IMHO) what we want out of this mailing list! b) Only some (or one) person responds to every message they see. If it is only one person, then they are treating the entire list, and every other person in the discussion, as their partner in a one-on-one conversation, instead of as participants in a many-to-many discussion. By default, this person or small group of persons then "dominates the discussion". Since we don't want a), most of us don't respond to every message. However, this lets b) happen, and then the thread gets dominated by one person. This person is then likely to get nominated CMOTW :) So, this shows that the strategy you mention in your first paragraph quoted above leads to list domination. Your two statements quoted above actually tend to contradict each other. Like I said, take or leave this bit of wisdom as you will. Amanda Lurker, FreeBSD-user, trying to figure out whether to triple-boot or just convert from FreeBSD to linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
[issues] To triple boot or...
Hi, Amanda, > Lurker, FreeBSD-user, trying to figure out whether to triple-boot or just > convert from FreeBSD to Linux If you have the disk space, triple booting is not all that painful. Just my .02 Caity [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, curious wrote: > well how about guytalk here a linuxchix? Well, that would be beyond the scope of LinuxChix, I would think but you are certainly welcome to create such a list elsewhere. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] MS vs DOJ, etc
> pretend I'm a really big guy (okay, this is hard, but pretend > anyway...think, like..my father's size or something) on the internet you can be anyone or anything :) > > you're selling glasses cool! > > I'm selling lemonade yum! > > if I agree to give you a cut rate on lemonade so you can sell it with your > glasses as an incentive to your customers to buy *your* glasses over other > vendors who don't have lemonade, then that's fair yippie! Heck.. lets make this better.. why don't I give you a cut rate on my glasses so that you have something to put your lemonade in.. however you agree to only buy my glasses... > > if I threaten to pound you into the ground if you don't include my > lemonade, that's not umm ok > > now, understand that power does not just come with size. In this case, MS > had the *only* lemonade, they do? then why is it I'm not drinking MS lemonade at home? (ie. I'm not using MS at home) infact I was raised on Apple-lemonade for many years.. hmmms > everyone else was selling glasses with lemonade, cool! > and most of the people who were buying were convinced they were allergic > to limes (okay, that's a bit contrived, but it's hard to make an analogy > for this one at 11 at night :) ). hmmms.. how about apples? I've lived off apple-juice for a longtime (macs) > Hence, in order to survive, you *have* > to sell MS lemonade. Nah I'll just make a glass that will de-alergize from limes (ie. run a diffrent system) > Therefore, if you *have* to sell MS lemonade, umm no.. no I don't > and MS > won't sell you the lemonade at the same rate as everyone else, If I want to sell a product created by microsoft I should be obligated to follow MS agreements since I did not create thier product.. They created/baught/copied/etc.. it.. they own it.. > then you > won't be profitable, and you will die (as a company). Perhaps > And if MS says 'we > will charge you more than we charge anyone else if you give your customers > the option of any other drink' you will not give your customers the option > of other drinks with their glasses. Again *I* would be making the choice to deal in MS products.. and in doing so *I* have to deal with MS on thier terms... >Hence, MS has just threatened to pound > you into the ground (kill you) if you don't include their lemonade. As I stated before to utilize MS product I would have to deal with thier terms.. > > got it yet? apparently not.. > > And this is just *one* issue -- the OEM one...MS has done stuff like this > consistently. They have also renegged on contracts and other shady stuff > (according to what I've been reading..I don't remember how much was > actually used in the trial right now, but I do know that quite a bit of it > was). Basically, they are the neighborhood bully and they can be because > they are big. Either the government can stop it, or we can hope (and > unlike most free-trade'ers, I don't believe this for a second, and no one > ever has proven it right, though I'll grant no one has proven it > completely wrong [proving negatives, again] ) that the market will > straighten itself out and despite MSes strongarming someone will > outmanuver them, or we can accept that MS (and any other company as > ruthless as they ) will happily destroy anything in it's path on the way > to a profit. Microsoft created a product (well serval actualy).. and thusly should be able to sell thier product as they see fit.. THEY own the product.. not the government, not you, not me.. > > The biggest problem I see with your brand of libertarianism (the whole > anti-government/pro-capitalism schtick) is that it replaces the power of > the state with the power of the corporations. It provides rights and power to all.. and it's not "anti-government".. rather a government that makes sense... gives individuals more self-governing power > At least the state is > nominally under citizen control. how much control do you have over your rights? >We know the corporations aren't. The > biggest problem I see with capitalism is that it values things over people it values rights of people over governments > (note capitalism != free enterprise, which is of the same genus, but a > different, and imo much tamer species). This is bad when it happens on an > individual basis. Do we have any reason to believe it would be good on a > larger scale? It more about what is right and ethical then a whimsical "good"... > > I don't think anyone here *wants* a great deal of government control. We > certainly don't want things like the VA government looking into our > bedrooms (says the walking felon :) ) (for those who don't know, Virginia > has some really heinous laws about how, where and with whom you can have > sex with ). Thats why all us' virginians are virgins :) > But, at the same time, we don't want our lives to be run by > corps, You life won't be run by a corperation... it will be yours to lead... >either. Big brother can be busin
Re: [issues] To triple boot or...
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Caitlyn Martin wrote: >If you have the disk space, triple booting is not all that painful. It's definitely a disk space issue for me: to triple-boot and continue under the same cramped conditions, or to convert and finally have a decent sized system... Amanda [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
curious wrote: > > There is nothing "un-ethical" about being selfish.. HERE is the core difference between my ethics and yours. Possibly between many people's ethics and yours. _I_ think there is something very very wrong, very unethical, almost evil, about being selfish. I think the core cause of many of the world's injustices is selfishness. No, I'm not interested in a long debate about it - certainly not in this forum. This is not philosophy 101. But please understand that to me, and perhaps to a lot of people, selfishness is VERY VERY VERY unethical. Jenn V. -- Humans are the only species to feed and house entirely separate species for no reason other than the pleasure of their company. Why? [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jenn Vespermanhttp://www.simegen.com/~jenn/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: micros~1 and apple (was Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling)
curious wrote: > > if the architect OWNS that building.. yes he has the right to blow it up.. > Perhaps. But the argument was that the program in question was work-for-hire. Which means the hirer owned it - not Microsoft. And thus, the hirer was the one with the right to 'blow it up'. Jenn V. -- Humans are the only species to feed and house entirely separate species for no reason other than the pleasure of their company. Why? [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jenn Vespermanhttp://www.simegen.com/~jenn/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] MS vs DOJ, etc
curious wrote: > Sounds good to me :).. I think nothing should be done :).. Fine. We've got that. We understand your argument, and respectfully disagree. You can now relax, knowing you've made your point. As the list has, for two days, attempted to explain our side to you - and you don't seem to be getting it, I request that you refrain from asking for further explanation. Getting nowhere at all is no fun. Jenn V. -- Humans are the only species to feed and house entirely separate species for no reason other than the pleasure of their company. Why? [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jenn Vespermanhttp://www.simegen.com/~jenn/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
> No, I'm not interested in a long debate about it - certainly not in this > forum. This is not philosophy 101. But please understand that to me, and > perhaps to a lot of people, selfishness is VERY VERY VERY unethical. In that case.. for this list anyways.. we will agree to disagree :) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, J B wrote: > Call me a stupid man, but what is a CMOTW? Clueless Male Of The Week. -- _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net "Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator "That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > curious wrote: > > > > There is nothing "un-ethical" about being selfish.. > > HERE is the core difference between my ethics and yours. Possibly between > many people's ethics and yours. > > _I_ think there is something very very wrong, very unethical, almost evil, > about being selfish. There's a lot of difference between self-interest and selfishness. While respecting and following your self-interest is Good, being selfish is Bad. I'm not sure that curious understands the distinction? > I think the core cause of many of the world's injustices is selfishness. > > No, I'm not interested in a long debate about it - certainly not in this > forum. This is not philosophy 101. But please understand that to me, and > perhaps to a lot of people, selfishness is VERY VERY VERY unethical. I'd agree with you -- but I'm not sure we're using the same word curious is. -- _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net "Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator "That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
[issues] this message seems to have failed on last send...
Alright since I'm probably one of those people who should have read the (yet non-existant) FAQ... I'm going to try to start one :) I've found that on other lists (technical ones) that FAQs are typicaly built by collecting a bunch of questions that aught to be answered and post them to the list.. this alows people who answer various questions to recived credit.. by including their name in the answer so here is a collection of questions (some with answers grabbed off the homepage) Some of this is issues specific but could easly be broadened to encompas the other lists: First attempt at a FAQ: Why is this list here? to quote from the discussions page: "Many people, including myself, are interested in discussing the larger, abstract, theoretical/philosophical issues related to Linux, the Open Source movement, Women & Technology, etc. The "issues" list has been created for these discussions. Since the subject area is a little fuzzy, so long as something is more-or-less on-topic, feel free to post it. If discussions do get off-topic, I will ask that they be moved to one of the other lists. Who are some of these people? http://www.linuxchix.org/docs/chix/index.html (perhaps some should be included in the FAQ?) What is trolling and why is it bad? Why shouldn't every response be responded to? Why shouln't you send unsolicited emails or ads on this list? because we don't like it or want it.. as a side note: there are several people on this list who are sysadmins... who will likely track you down.. add any open relay that you might be using to the blackhole list (thus preventing YOU and anyone who might be legitimatly using that relay from sending mail to a large chunck of people)... and if they manage to track you down (which is more likely then not).. you may find yourself with a rather perminant Blue Screen of DEATH!... :) What other forms of netiquite should be followed? What issues have been exausted on this list? /"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.curious.org/ / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail"This quote is false." -anon [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: micros~1 and apple (was Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling)
J B wrote: [OS/2] > Nobut it would have died anyway...M$ would never have agreed to continue > to update it, and IBM did not have the programming resources to support it. I must have imagined versions 2, 3 and 4 then. Silly me. -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +64-21-870-425 ICQ: 5632563 or shout loudly [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
At 07:18 AM 11/09/1999 -0800, you wrote: > >Ok.. lets say hypothiticly I was the creator of Dos.. and I wanted >everyone to run my program... so it would be easyer for me to sell my >other applications.. don't you think I would try to write software that >would create a higher cost of entry for other people? There is nothing >"un-ethical" about being selfish.. > Well, that just says it all doesn't it? Curious, may I suggest that you do some basic background reading (beyond the potted Ayne Rand inevitably trotted out by the more pseudo-intellectual proponents of this absurd postion): you could start with a good dictionary, and the definitions of ethics, then perhaps some basic Philosophy and a little reading in the evolution of human cultures.. As a hint, ethics, being a set of rules grounded in a morality, are *precisely* about limitations on selfishness.. Janus (moving from curious to flabbergasted in a hurry -- move over Vinnie!) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, curious wrote: > > No, I'm not interested in a long debate about it - certainly not in this > > forum. This is not philosophy 101. But please understand that to me, and > > perhaps to a lot of people, selfishness is VERY VERY VERY unethical. > > In that case.. for this list anyways.. we will agree to disagree :) Chris, it's not just an agree to disagree thing. It's that women emphasize cooperation where men emphasize conquest. Self-interest is one thing, but if you're going to go touting selfishness as a virtue, I'm not sure you and I really ARE friends. Or can be. -- _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net "Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator "That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] MS vs DOJ, etc
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, curious wrote: > they do? then why is it I'm not drinking MS lemonade at home? (ie. I'm not > using MS at home) infact I was raised on Apple-lemonade for many years.. > hmmms you were raised on apple juice, different product, and it was in a cup...because the glasses won't hold applejuice, silly! Remember, in the OEM discussion, we are talking about PC resellers, and MacOS doesn't run on intel hardware (to my knowledge, anyway!) Apple is an interesting case, but doesn't really come into play here. and people, partially because of FUD, partially because of already-made-purchases and partically because of really good marketing, think they can't drink any other version of 'ade', and they don't want to buy plastic cups because they are more expensive and have fewer apps written for them (have we mixed our metaphores enough, yet ) > Nah I'll just make a glass that will de-alergize from limes (ie. run a > diffrent system) but you can't -- People are already convinced that they are allergic -- and as a small end-retailer (or even as a gateway - or - compaq sized retailer) you can't do a whole heck of a lot about those attitudes fast enough to save yourself. Compaq two years ago *could* have done an advertising campaign with, say, OS/2, telling people how good it is, and *only* selling OS/2 computers, but at best, they would have lost serious money for several quarters, and there's a really good chance it would have been a suicidal move. Stock holders, board members and general powers that be don't allow those sorts of things. Altruism and capitalism are not friendly bedfellows. > umm no.. no I don't um...for all the reasons I've outlined, yes you do, if you intend to survive > If I want to sell a product created by microsoft I should be obligated to > follow MS agreements since I did not create thier product.. They > created/baught/copied/etc.. it.. they own it.. here's the problem, you *have* to sell MS's product in order to survive, and you have to get it at the same price as everyone else in order to remain competative in order to survive, hence, you have to get MS's product at the same price everyone else is getting it at in order to survive. Got that? in order to get it at the same price as everyone else, you have to completely quit offering other competing products (OS/2, linux, whatever) Hence, the bully has just threatened to pummle you into hummus if you sell someone else's stuff. > Again *I* would be making the choice to deal in MS products.. and in doing > so *I* have to deal with MS on thier terms... You have a choice, deal with MS or die. Some choice. > Microsoft created a product (well serval actualy).. and thusly should be > able to sell thier product as they see fit.. THEY own the product.. not > the government, not you, not me.. Yes. To a point. I can use anything I own in any way I want, for the most part. But I'm not allowed to stand at the end of the apartment hallway and drop used computer bits on the heads of folks passing by. Their right to sell their product as they see fit ended when they abused their power, just as my right to use my used computer bits as I see fit ends when I start dropping them on people's heads. > It provides rights and power to all.. and it's not "anti-government".. > rather a government that makes sense... gives individuals more > self-governing power Compared with many things, it's anti-government...it might be more accurate to say it's anti-government power. And I don't necessarily disagree with that. > how much control do you have over your rights? Some. More than I have over the rights that are being eroded quickly by corporations. (my right to privacy, my right to products that are what they say they are, my right to food that isn't contaminated, my right to food that is labled if it is contminated -- remember, I'm the one who knows exactly how hard certain issues with labling and BGH and GE foods were fought. I don't necessarily care about government mandated labeling, but the corps were trying to make it illegal to honestly say that your product *didn't* contain such things!) > it values rights of people over governments Bullshit It values rights of some people who own stuff over rights of other people > It more about what is right and ethical then a whimsical "good"... If your ethics say that 'might makes rights' <- the whole social darwinism schtick, and that some people are more equal than others (based on how much they own, rather than somehting intrinsic) then you're right. And there's not a whole heck of a lot I can argue with you about that right now. My ethics (as you know) are hardly 'whimsical' -- not to mention you know exactly how much I hate that word, even since a certain judge used it in describing my choice of adoptive parents. > You life won't be run by a corperation... it will be yours to lead... BS. My life is *already* run by corporations. Yours is too, you're just too used to it to see
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
What unusual dynamics for a list... on issues that people don't want to hear from me on.. people jump on them.. I'm guessing the bbses and lists that I have used in my life are quite diffrent then yours.. If there is someone who is talking about something that is offtopic or unwarrented.. it's just dropped by the list or message board as a whole.. and the person who posts such things eventualy catches on.. Now, I've been asked to refrain from discussing this topic.. and I agree.. yet it's still being agrued.. leaving me with no means of defending my views... Heck Deirdre has said she's not sure she can be my friend because of my views.. while at the same time stating she isn't sure what I mean by a certian word that seems to be key to the decision.. I'll proly email her in person about it.. sigh, /"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.curious.org/ / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail"This quote is false." -anon On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Janus wrote: > At 07:18 AM 11/09/1999 -0800, you wrote: > > > >Ok.. lets say hypothiticly I was the creator of Dos.. and I wanted > >everyone to run my program... so it would be easyer for me to sell my > >other applications.. don't you think I would try to write software that > >would create a higher cost of entry for other people? There is nothing > >"un-ethical" about being selfish.. > > > > Well, that just says it all doesn't it? Curious, may I suggest that you do > some basic background reading (beyond the potted Ayne Rand inevitably > trotted out by the more pseudo-intellectual proponents of this absurd > postion): you could start with a good dictionary, and the definitions of > ethics, then perhaps some basic Philosophy and a little reading in the > evolution of human cultures.. > > As a hint, ethics, being a set of rules grounded in a morality, are > *precisely* about limitations on selfishness.. > > Janus > (moving from curious to flabbergasted in a hurry -- move over Vinnie!) > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Tweak tweak tweak (was: Ofc2K)
At 09:04 on Nov 9, Janus combined all the right letters to say: > >Personally, I like the power to turn things OFF ;o) > > > > If you are using Win 9X, you can do a lot of customisation with TweakUI -- > an unsupported tool that MS programmers made on their own time to do a lot > of the things power users want to do -- like get rid of useless bells and > whistles. Yeah, TweakUI is one of my best friends when it comes to Windows... I wish that kind of thing was built into the OS, though, and not a separate entity you had to locate and install on your own if you knew what to look for. > But, for a lot of the other Win9X irritants, you gotta use msconfig or do > the Registry Hack -- my collected Registry Hack documentation now makes up > a manual of its own, but I no longer have menus full of items I don't need, > devices that load whether I want them or not, anything related to channels, > active desktop or... ugh, registry hacking. ;o) Does it make a noticeable difference on speed of the GUI or just more comfortable/customized? > Try going to the MS Knowledge Base -- a lot of the Registry Hacks are there > if you are determined. And, If you have Win95 or 98 Gold (choke!) TweakUI > is in the Powertoys directory on the CD.. Ahh you can download it from microsoft.com/windows somewhere, too. They also have "kerneltoys" in there. -nicole [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
> Chris, it's not just an agree to disagree thing. It's that women emphasize > cooperation where men emphasize conquest. Self-interest is one thing, but watch those generalizations, Deirdre ;) -- Aaron Malone ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) System Administrator Poplar Bluff Internet, Inc. http://www.semo.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling
> When I say 68000 macs I mean like the macplus.. last I checked mac 68k > linux required atleast a 68030 or at the VERY least an mmu which the 68000 > doesn't support.. or atleast the macplus motherboard doesn't support.. I think the SE30 is the earliest Mac that can run Linix. Deidre Calarco Robert Darvas Associates (734) 761-8713 (ext. 16) [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Re:Ofc2K (was: micros~1 and apple)
> what hardware do you have that you can't use? > btw a great source of games is lokisoft www.lokisoft.com > they have a newsgroup for recommendations.. also there are lots of sites > that cover how to run common games in wine.. DVD, Winmodem (on my laptop) and on my desktop I have a CD-R and AFAIK it only works with windows. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, curious wrote: > What unusual dynamics for a list... on issues that people don't want to > hear from me on.. people jump on them.. I'm guessing the bbses and lists > that I have used in my life are quite diffrent then yours.. If there is > someone who is talking about something that is offtopic or unwarrented.. > it's just dropped by the list or message board as a whole.. and the person > who posts such things eventualy catches on.. Now, I've been asked to > refrain from discussing this topic.. and I agree.. yet it's still being > agrued.. leaving me with no means of defending my views... You miss the point. You were ASKED to do research so you could have intelligent conversation on the subject rather than trolling. Now you're complaining that people have, effectively, asked you to stop trolling. > Heck Deirdre has said she's not sure she can be my friend because of my > views.. while at the same time stating she isn't sure what I mean by > a certian word that seems to be key to the decision.. I'll proly email her > in person about it.. ...which I answered as follows: I've never considered selfish people or hedonists worth knowing. Self-interest is one thing, selfish is another. -- _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net "Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator "That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] MS vs DOJ, etc
> > they do? then why is it I'm not drinking MS lemonade at home? (ie. I'm not > > using MS at home) infact I was raised on Apple-lemonade for many years.. > > hmmms > > you were raised on apple juice, different product, and it was in a > cup...because the glasses won't hold applejuice, silly! > > Remember, in the OEM discussion, we are talking about PC resellers, and > MacOS doesn't run on intel hardware (to my knowledge, anyway!) Apple is an > interesting case, but doesn't really come into play here. The Macintosh IS a PC... and for their platform they ARE controling who makes the hardware, who makes the OS, Who can license their product to VERY extreme degrees... they are keeping other vendors like BeOS from alowing thier OS to run on thier current platforms... to get apple juice you have to buy thier cups, napkins, straws, AND glasses! Since you stating that they aren't in the same field as microsoft.. then what ever field they are in THEY have a monoply! > and people, partially because of FUD, partially because of > already-made-purchases and partically because of really good marketing, > think they can't drink any other version of 'ade', and they don't want to > buy plastic cups because they are more expensive and have fewer apps > written for them (have we mixed our metaphores enough, yet ) > > > Nah I'll just make a glass that will de-alergize from limes (ie. run a > > diffrent system) > > but you can't -- People are already convinced that they are allergic -- > and as a small end-retailer (or even as a gateway - or - compaq sized > retailer) you can't do a whole heck of a lot about those attitudes fast > enough to save yourself. Compaq two years ago *could* have done an > advertising campaign with, say, OS/2, telling people how good it is, and > *only* selling OS/2 computers, but at best, they would have lost serious > money for several quarters, and there's a really good chance it would have > been a suicidal move. Stock holders, board members and general powers that > be don't allow those sorts of things. Altruism and capitalism are not > friendly bedfellows. > > > umm no.. no I don't > > um...for all the reasons I've outlined, yes you do, if you intend to > survive If you want to survive playing by microsofts rules and want to use thier product.. hmm maybe this will be answered later.. but I don't understand how a product they made becomes an object someone else can control... > > > If I want to sell a product created by microsoft I should be obligated to > > follow MS agreements since I did not create thier product.. They > > created/baught/copied/etc.. it.. they own it.. > > here's the problem, you *have* to sell MS's product in order to survive, > and you have to get it at the same price as everyone else in order to > remain competative in order to survive, hence, you have to get MS's > product at the same price everyone else is getting it at in order to > survive. Got that? I don't belive this is the case... VAlinux systems, penguin computing, thelinuxstore, etc... have been doing just fine.. heck microway sells both types of systems and sells linux systems for less... > in order to get it at the same price as everyone else, you have to > completely quit offering other competing products (OS/2, linux, whatever) to maintain a cheap computer with MS product business.. certianly.. > > Hence, the bully has just threatened to pummle you into hummus if you sell > someone else's stuff. speaking of hummus.. my brother makes the best hummus.. but I digress :)... you don't have to be in that business... it's your choice.. if I went into business selling aquawidgets with caps on them.. and the company that created those aquawidgets decides to stop selling them.. my business would likely go under.. however I don't have the right to tell the aquawidget people that they HAVE to sell thier aquawidgets to me.. the aquawidget people have just (in your eyes) pummled me to death.. I'm guessing we have diffrent definitions of being pummled.. refusing to sell a creation to someone is a right.. in my eyes atleast.. so perhaps it's right for big vinnie to pummel me ;) > > Again *I* would be making the choice to deal in MS products.. and in doing > > so *I* have to deal with MS on thier terms... > > You have a choice, deal with MS or die. Some choice. As stated earlyer there are other choices... > > > Microsoft created a product (well serval actualy).. and thusly should be > > able to sell thier product as they see fit.. THEY own the product.. not > > the government, not you, not me.. > > Yes. To a point. I can use anything I own in any way I want, for the most > part. But I'm not allowed to stand at the end of the apartment hallway and > drop used computer bits on the heads of folks passing by. ahh you hit one of my "stopgap" trees :).. to me this is physical assult against the rights of another.. > > Their right to sell their product as they see fit ended when they abused >
Re: [issues] MS vs DOJ, etc
sorry that response to vinnie was supposed to be an emailed response.. I'm quite sure most of you don't know ness :) hehe, /"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.curious.org/ / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail"This quote is false." -anon [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] MS vs DOJ, etc
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, curious wrote: > The Macintosh IS a PC... and for their platform they ARE controling who > makes the hardware, who makes the OS, Who can license their product to > VERY extreme degrees... they are keeping other vendors like BeOS from > alowing thier OS to run on thier current platforms... to get apple juice > you have to buy thier cups, napkins, straws, AND glasses! Since you > stating that they aren't in the same field as microsoft.. then what ever > field they are in THEY have a monoply! You're not comparing apples and apples (pun intended). Try NOT to think in logical fallacies here. A single vendor who sells a proprietary product only to a direct market != a single vendor who wheedles other companies into bundling. Apple is similar to Sun or IBM, not to Microsoft. Also recognize that a "monopoly" is dependent upon an overall market. Apple has a monopoly on *Macintoshes* but not on the PC market as a whole. MS *DOES* have a monopoly on the PC market as a whole. For one thing, look at MS's market cap vs. Apple's. No contest there. (For a long time, Apple's market cap was significantly greater than MS's) -- _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net "Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator "That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] this message seems to have failed on last send...
Excerpts from linuxchix: 9-Nov-99 [issues] this message seems.. by [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Alright since I'm probably one of those people who should have read the > (yet non-existant) FAQ... You haven't read http://www.linuxchix.org/docs/faq.html ? [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] MS vs DOJ, etc
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, curious wrote: I missed an earlier fallacy here: > > here's the problem, you *have* to sell MS's product in order to survive, > > and you have to get it at the same price as everyone else in order to > > remain competative in order to survive, hence, you have to get MS's > > product at the same price everyone else is getting it at in order to > > survive. Got that? > > I don't belive this is the case... VAlinux systems, penguin computing, > thelinuxstore, etc... have been doing just fine.. heck microway sells both > types of systems and sells linux systems for less... Do you HONESTLY think that VA sells no MS? That they have no OEM agreement with MS? > > You have a choice, deal with MS or die. Some choice. > > As stated earlyer there are other choices... ::sigh:: You still don't get it. There isn't, by definition, ADEQUATE other choices because of MS's bullying tactics. -- _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net "Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator "That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] MS vs DOJ, etc
> > I don't belive this is the case... VAlinux systems, penguin computing, > > thelinuxstore, etc... have been doing just fine.. heck microway sells both > > types of systems and sells linux systems for less... > > Do you HONESTLY think that VA sells no MS? That they have no OEM agreement > with MS? hmmms didn't find VA's statement on the matter... so they might.. however going to penguin computings: http://www.penguincomputing.com/about.html states they don't... > > > > You have a choice, deal with MS or die. Some choice. > > > > As stated earlyer there are other choices... > > ::sigh:: You still don't get it. There isn't, by definition, ADEQUATE > other choices because of MS's bullying tactics. At what point is something considered adequate? If no other company is/was able to stand up to microsoft's marketing... (which is how microsoft became, and maintains it's success).. if customers weren't buying OS/2 or DRDOS to a degree that would have made a diffrence.. why should microsoft be sued? they won! for a while they have won.. in compition sometimes someone WINS... > > -- > _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net > "Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator > "That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60 > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] MS vs DOJ, etc
> At what point is something considered adequate? If no other company is/was > able to stand up to microsoft's marketing... (which is how microsoft > became, and maintains it's success).. if customers weren't buying OS/2 or > DRDOS to a degree that would have made a diffrence.. why should microsoft > be sued? they won! for a while they have won.. in compition sometimes > someone WINS... the problem is with this situation nobody ELSE ever wins... or has a chance to. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] MS vs DOJ, etc
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, curious wrote: > > Do you HONESTLY think that VA sells no MS? That they have no OEM agreement > > with MS? > > hmmms didn't find VA's statement on the matter... so they might.. however > going to penguin computings: > http://www.penguincomputing.com/about.html > states they don't... Yeah, well Sam doesn't sell as many computers as you might think. > > ::sigh:: You still don't get it. There isn't, by definition, ADEQUATE > > other choices because of MS's bullying tactics. > > At what point is something considered adequate? If no other company is/was > able to stand up to microsoft's marketing... (which is how microsoft > became, and maintains it's success).. if customers weren't buying OS/2 or > DRDOS to a degree that would have made a diffrence.. why should microsoft > be sued? they won! for a while they have won.. in compition sometimes > someone WINS... You miss the point. They made deals that made the products NOT compete on an even playing field. I'll give you an example: Apple wrote a great version of basic in 1984 for the Mac, back when MS was mostly known for Basic. MS said "if you release that, we're not going to renew your license for Applesoft" -- still a major source of their revenue. In other words, that's an *anticompetitive* practice. Now, as it happens, it was VB but ten years earlier. So...all of us struggled with poorer tools because of MS. That's ONE example. (MacBasic was VERY cool for its time) -- _Deirdre * http://www.linuxcabal.net * http://www.deirdre.net "Mars has been a tough target" -- Peter G. Neumann, Risks Digest Moderator "That's because the Martians keep shooting things down." -- Harlan Rosenthal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, retorting in Risks Digest 20.60 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling
"Deidre L. Calarco" wrote: > > > When I say 68000 macs I mean like the macplus.. last I checked mac 68k > > linux required atleast a 68030 or at the VERY least an mmu which the 68000 > > doesn't support.. or atleast the macplus motherboard doesn't support.. > > I think the SE30 is the earliest Mac that can run Linix. We ran a microlinux on Atari STs. 68000 machines. Jenn V. -- Humans are the only species to feed and house entirely separate species for no reason other than the pleasure of their company. Why? [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jenn Vespermanhttp://www.simegen.com/~jenn/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > > On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, curious wrote: > > > > No, I'm not interested in a long debate about it - certainly not in this > > > forum. This is not philosophy 101. But please understand that to me, and > > > perhaps to a lot of people, selfishness is VERY VERY VERY unethical. > > > > In that case.. for this list anyways.. we will agree to disagree :) > > Chris, it's not just an agree to disagree thing. It's that women emphasize > cooperation where men emphasize conquest. Self-interest is one thing, but > if you're going to go touting selfishness as a virtue, I'm not sure you > and I really ARE friends. Or can be. Yes. I recall something curious said on another thread where 'in competition, someone *wins*'. MY problem with that is that I prefer cooperation - where EVERYONE wins. No, I don't like the current capitalist system. It discourages the production and distribution of quality, regardless of consumer desire. Jenn V. -- Humans are the only species to feed and house entirely separate species for no reason other than the pleasure of their company. Why? [EMAIL PROTECTED]Jenn Vespermanhttp://www.simegen.com/~jenn/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Deirdre Saoirse wrote: > > > > Chris, it's not just an agree to disagree thing. It's that women emphasize > > cooperation where men emphasize conquest. Self-interest is one thing, but > > if you're going to go touting selfishness as a virtue, I'm not sure you > > and I really ARE friends. Or can be. > > Yes. I recall something curious said on another thread where 'in competition, > someone *wins*'. > > MY problem with that is that I prefer cooperation - where EVERYONE wins. Can we be more precise here? I don't think that cooperation is more of a "female trait" and that competition is more of a "male trait". Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive, or why are we talking about them like they are? I realize this is mostly a discussion about corporate practices, but that doesn't mean we have to resort to generalizations about "what men do" and "what women do". srl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
> >Can we be more precise here? I don't think that cooperation is more of a >"female trait" and that competition is more of a "male trait". Why do the >two have to be mutually exclusive, or why are we talking about them like >they are? > >I realize this is mostly a discussion about corporate practices, but that >doesn't mean we have to resort to generalizations about "what men do" and >"what women do". I think the underlying assumption of the posts you refer to is NOT: Women are genetically cooperative and men are genetically competitive. The underlying assumption/subtext is: Women are raised in our culture to be cooperative, are rewarded for being cooperative and are discouraged, sometimes punished, for being competitive. Men are raised in our culture to be competitive... Yes, ideally, everyone could express themselves as they really are, but our culture has drawn very deep gender lines that are difficult to cross. We're not categorizing; we're describing the horrible reality and discrimination in our society. -Jennifer [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] this message seems to have failed on last send...
At 10:08 AM 11/09/1999 -0800, you wrote: >Alright since I'm probably one of those people who should have read the >(yet non-existant) FAQ... >I'm going to try to start one :). This strikes me as a very good use for your energies, *provided that we get some kind of control over the final form of the answers! >Who are some of these people? >http://www.linuxchix.org/docs/chix/index.html (perhaps some should be >included in the FAQ?) > Not a good idea, I think, as people will come and go, and this will require constant updating -- a pointer should suffice > >Why shouln't you send unsolicited emails or ads on this list? > >as a side note: there are several people on this list who are sysadmins... >who will likely track you down.. add any open relay that you might be >using to the blackhole list ... and if they manage to track you down (which is more likely then >not).. you may find yourself with a rather perminant Blue Screen of >DEATH!... :) I hope this is not serious -- because it advocates actions by our members that are illegal in a lot of countries, and unethical in a lot more. > >What other forms of netiquite should be followed? > Spell checking. > >What issues have been exausted on this list? > This is also not a good idea, imho, as in a year or two there may be all new people who want to revive a topic. Rather, perhaps summaries of such topics as "Why should I not raise the value of equal rights for women on this list" would be more appropriate? This would be a big job, and, again, require constant updating, but it would also give future members a flavour for the list and a base to start from 2 yen (not worth what it was a few years back) Janus [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
At 01:28 PM 11/09/1999 -0600, you wrote: >> Chris, it's not just an agree to disagree thing. It's that women emphasize >> cooperation where men emphasize conquest. Self-interest is one thing, but > Just a few names: Golda Meir Margaret Thatcher Francesca Sforza (got boiling oil down to a fine art) Hillary Rodham Clinton and:St. Francis Assisi Mohatma Ghandi Jan Hus Prince Kropotkin Tommy Douglas (for the Canadians) 'Nuff said Janus A very competitive female married to a very co-operative male... m. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
No Subject
just a note.. bill gates is on 60minII tonight /"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.curious.org/ / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail"This quote is false." -anon [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
just to be cute: Ayn Rand and Karl Marx :) /"\ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . \ / ASCII Ribbon Campaign [EMAIL PROTECTED] X - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail http://www.curious.org/ / \ - NO Word docs in e-mail"This quote is false." -anon On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Janus wrote: > At 01:28 PM 11/09/1999 -0600, you wrote: > >> Chris, it's not just an agree to disagree thing. It's that women emphasize > >> cooperation where men emphasize conquest. Self-interest is one thing, but > > > > Just a few names: > > Golda Meir > Margaret Thatcher > Francesca Sforza (got boiling oil down to a fine art) > Hillary Rodham Clinton > > and: St. Francis Assisi > Mohatma Ghandi >Jan Hus >Prince Kropotkin > Tommy Douglas (for the Canadians) > > 'Nuff said > > Janus > A very competitive female married to a very co-operative male... > m. > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org > [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] Why women should have equality/equivilency
> What is that 10%about $10 Billion? > > if you were worth $90Billion, what difference does it make? to me ?? i don't care since it's a lot more than i could spend,heck,if i had 200 000$,i could live a bare minimum of 15 years without any income (buy a 2 years old Toyota Corolla,then a landscape just big enough to have a small house and a garden and then,build a house and for the remaining 140 to 150K $ still cnd money,i would put that in a locked bank account which give me around 1000$/month and adjust yearly for cost of life increase). Alain "i'm frugal by nature" Toussaint [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: micros~1 and apple (was Re: [issues] MS/DOJ ruling)
I have already beaten myself profusely with an old IDE cable...wrote a script 100 times on the chalkboard and revoked my superuser priviledges...what else do you want from me? J B wrote: [OS/2] > Nobut it would have died anyway...M$ would never have agreed to continue > to update it, and IBM did not have the programming resources to support it. I must have imagined versions 2, 3 and 4 then. Silly me. -- Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +64-21-870-425 ICQ: 5632563 or shout loudly [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
Re: [issues] MS vs DOJ, etc
On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, curious wrote: > The Macintosh IS a PC... and for their platform they ARE controling who for the purposes of this debate macintosh is *not* a pc -- pc is defined as intel-compatible hardware (I know, I know, *technically* the mac is a 'personal computer', but that's not how we're defining pc) > makes the hardware, who makes the OS, Who can license their product to > VERY extreme degrees... they are keeping other vendors like BeOS from > alowing thier OS to run on thier current platforms... to get apple juice > you have to buy thier cups, napkins, straws, AND glasses! Since you > stating that they aren't in the same field as microsoft.. then what ever > field they are in THEY have a monoply! They have control over a product. Other people sell desktop machines, but only apple sells macintosh. Other people sell OSes that run on PCs, but MS sells windows, which has a majority of the PC OS market. It would, btw, be different if MS manufactured hardware, which they don't (at least not to any meaningful degree, I do know about the trackballs, mice and keyboards :P ) (meaningful, btw, would be if they were the only folks who manufactured hardware that was compatible with their OS, and probably that hardware would have to comprise a majority of a computer system, though I imagine that would be a bit arguable) > If you want to survive playing by microsofts rules and want to use thier > product.. I don't mind that you slaughter english (I do it all the time), but could you please try to make the kills in places that don't leave fourteen different ways to parse your sentence :) What on *earth* did you mean by that? > hmm maybe this will be answered later.. but I don't understand how a > product they made becomes an object someone else can control... Because they have more power. Because they were acting like a bully. The teachers leave us alone until we start hitting other children. Same basic principle here. My right to use my bullhorn in any way I wish does *not* include the right to keep you up all night. > I don't belive this is the case... VAlinux systems, penguin computing, > thelinuxstore, etc... have been doing just fine.. heck microway sells both > types of systems and sells linux systems for less... The linux places don't sell windows stuff. The places that sell both likely have different business plans than the average OEM. Also, it's my perception that MS has chilled a bit (a bit!) in the face of DOJ scrutiny (if someone has proof they didn't, I'll change my mind :) ) > to maintain a cheap computer with MS product business.. certianly.. to maintain a *competetive* computer with choice of MS product business > people that they HAVE to sell thier aquawidgets to me.. the aquawidget > people have just (in your eyes) pummled me to death.. I'm guessing we have nopers, because you can always get another aquawidget, it would be more like they had the major aquawidgets everyone wanted, no one else wanted any other kind of aquawidget, and they refused to sell to *just you* because your hair was funny. > someone is a right.. in my eyes atleast.. so perhaps it's right for big > vinnie to pummel me ;) I'll remember that next time I see you > As stated earlyer there are other choices... as you failed to notice earlier there aren't.. > ahh you hit one of my "stopgap" trees :).. to me this is physical assult > against the rights of another.. of course, you're the one who said 'insert magic here' when I asked why people have rights, so you're being at least as whimsical as I :) see bullhorn example above. > the "power" they own is one that was created by customer demand.. once > customer demand goes away.. it's gone... the "abuse" as you see it.. I Of course, they are lying and doing other such stuff to keep customer demand up. > personaly prefer "ruthless and bullyness"... or perhaps just ness :) hehe somehow that was particularly apt > ANYWAYS at what point is something "abuse of power" when someone > creates a product and selectivly sells it to people... When that person has monopoly power and uses it to completely destroy anyone who is even possibly in competition with them. > again consumer demand drives corporate decisions... unless government BS. Consumer ignorance allows corporates to get away with a lot. Corporate controlled media keeps consumers ignorant. Do you think, if you asked the average consumer, they would *want* it to be against the rules to lable foods? Do you think they would want pollution? Do you think they would want their private information traded around? Do you think they would want their tax money to go into subsidizing corporate interests? Do you think they would want new foods to be incompletely tested and released anyway? Do you think they would want drugs that could cause permanant neurological damage given to their children by their doctors? Do you think they want clothes that cost more per piece than the folks who make them ma
