OS/2 Shareware BBS: 15 Message/15-Message.zip/UU991113.zip/Ua991112.txt

Text File | 1999-11-15 | 1MB | 32,385 lines

                   comp.os.os2.advocacy             (Usenet)

                 Saturday, 06-Nov-1999 to Friday, 12-Nov-1999

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

From: [e-mail]                         08-Nov-99 07:30:19
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 05:18:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

> -- snip --

>>> Okay.  *IF* what you are saying is true, namely, that *ALL* unzip
>>> tools absolutely *MUST* die with your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE, then
>>> what I would suspect is that *YOUR* copy of JAVAINUF.EXE is
>>> corrupted in some way,

>> I said it was incomplete, Curtis, not corrupt.  I have no evidence
>> to support a claim that any of the bytes are incorrect.

> What you said is irrelevant,

On the contrary, what I said is quite relevant, Curtis.

> as I wasn't discussing what you said.

Why is that?  I told you the problem with the file, yet you ignored
that and called it "corrupt" instead.  Perhaps you'd be better off if
you did start discussing what I said rather than ignoring it.

>>> especially in light of the fact that *MY* InzoZip unzip.exe did, in
>>> fact, correctly extract the contents of *MY* JAVAINUF.EXE file.

>> Your copy is irrelevant, Curtis.

> In that my copy proves the error of your claim that one has to run OS/2
> in order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE,

My claim wasn't based on your copy of the file, Curtis, thus your copy
of the file is indeed irrelevant to my claim.

> it is not surprising that you would try and dismiss my copy as
> "irrelevant."

It's not surprising because it is indeed irrelevant, as I explained
above.

>>> Would your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE extract it's contents if it were run
>>> in an OS/2 session?

>> Unnecessary, given that I had already chosen the runtime environment
>> without unicode support, which includes the referenced classes.zip
>> file.

> Did I ask if it was "unnecessary," Dave?

Irrelevant, given that I didn't say that you did ask.

> Reading comprehension problems?

On your part.

> -- snip --

>>> It still doesn't let you off the hook regarding the fact that, as a
>>> response to Mike's and Marty's claim that they could view the
>>> contents of JAVAINUF.EXE using a Windows-based tool, you responded
>>> by posting InfoZip's error messages indicating that JAVAINUF.EXE's
>>> contents couldn't be extracted, as if that countered Mike's and
>>> Marty's claims, which, for the record, were made as a response to
>>> your erroneous claim that one had to run OS/2 in order to extract
>>> the contents of 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, Curtis?

> Running the self-extraction on some system that *does* support OS/2
> applications, Dave.

Thus my conclusion is perfectly logical, Curtis.

> I have already suggested this, but your rather insipid reply was
> that it wasn't "necessary."

Having more reading comprehension problems, Curtis?  What I called
unnecessary was the need for me to execute javainuf.exe, because I
had already extracted the classes.zip file from the other runtime
environment.  That extraction *was* performed by running the
executable on an OS/2 system.

>>> As far as my calling you "inept" is concerned, it is inept to post
>>> your InfoZip error messages as a response to the claim that WinZip
>>> can extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE,

>> What is allegedly "inept" about it, Curtis?

> I that your "verification" was based on a corrupted copy and you didn't
> even know it, yet you used it as "evidence" anyway.

How is that allegedly "inept", Curtis?  If a lab instructor gives a
student a voltmeter that happens to be malfunctioning, though in a way
not obvious to the student, and the student winds up making measurements
in a proper way, but unknowingly getting incorrect results because of
the malfunction, and reporting those results in his lab report, in what
way is the student "inept"?

As someone who has served as a lab instructor, I can state that such
situations have occurred.  Indeed, the fact that the voltmeter was
malfunctioning wasn't even known to the instructor.  The malfunction
was discovered when trying to reproduce the student's surprising
results.

Now, suppose you're the student and the instructor gave you a failing
grade and called you "inept" for getting the wrong answer using a
malfunctioning instrument.  How would you react?

> Or, even worse, you did know that it was corrupt

Not at the time the error message was posted, Curtis.  Of course, I've
told you that before, yet here you are, going down that erroneous path
once again.  Why?  Suffering from reading comprehension problems?

> (hence the repeated statements that the counter-evidence "didn't
> deal with [your] copy [of the file]"

That has to do with WinZip's allegedly superior ability to extract
the archive, Curtis.  It obviously cannot, given that it cannot
make the proper bytes magically appear.  Of course, I've also told
you that already as well.  Suffering from more reading comprehension
problems?

> -- said evidence being the JPEG of WinZip displaying JAVAINUF.EXE's
> contents --

Not displaying the contents of my copy of the file, Curtis, therefore
irrelevant, as I also told you already.  Suffering from more reading
comprehension problems?

> evidence that you apparently never even bothered to examine

Unnecessary, given that I already knew that my copy of the file
wasn't being used.  That's another item I already told you.  Still
suffering from reading comprehension problems?

> yet felt you could counter with a corrupted copy of the file)

I said it was incomplete, Curtis, not corrupt.  I have no evidence
to support a claim that any of the bytes are incorrect.

> and posted your "evidence" based on this corrupted copy.

You're getting the chronology screwed up again, Curtis.  My evidence
was posted at a time when the incompleteness of the file was not
known.  How many times do I need to tell you that to overcome your
reading comprehension problem?

> So, either you are inept or dishonest.

Illogical, given that you haven't demonstrated any "inept" behavior
(see above for why), or dishonesty on my part (also see above for
why).

> Take your pick.

Why should I choose between your two incorrect choices, Curtis?

>>> rather than to simply admit that one didn't have to run OS/2 in
>>> order to obtain said contents of said file.

>> I had no evidence to justify such a statement, Curtis.  It would be
>> "inept" to make such an unsubstantiated claim.

> Sure you did.

Liar.

> You simply chose to ignore it.

How ironic, coming from somebody ignoring the chronology by insisting
that I had evidence at a time when I clearly did not have it.

>>> It is also inept to claim, universally speaking, that "it is
>>> logical to expect all zip tools" to fail in the same fashion with
>>> any generic, given copy of JAVAINUF.EXE,

>> Where did I make such a claim, Curtis?  On the contrary, I said it is
>> logical to expect all unzip tools to fail on my copy of javainuf.exe.

> Which suggests that you did know it 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.

> which implies dishonesty on your part (see above).

Balderdash, Curtis, given that I did not know of the incompleteness
of the file at the time I posted the error message.  How many times
do I need to tell you that before it can overcome your reading
comprehension problem?

>>> even if you knew, a priori, that your version 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.

> You don't deny this a priori knowledge, then?

On what basis do you call it "a priori knowledge", Curtis?  Just how
many times do I need to tell you that "I had no knowledge of the file's
incompleteness at the time I posted the error message" before it can
overcome your reading comprehension problem?

> I guess I must recant: you are not "inept"

Took you long enough.

> but dishonest (see above).

Balderdash, Curtis, given that I did not know of the incompleteness
of the file at the time I posted the error message.  How many times
do I need to tell you that before it can overcome your reading
comprehension problem?

>>> So, like I said, you will reject/deny this as well, in all
>>> likelihood.

>> I'll correct all your errors, Curtis.  To use your own word, you're
>> "inept".

> I concede that taking your "evidence" at face value, and believing you
> to be honest, was erroneous on my part.

On what basis do you call my evidence "dishonest", Curtis?

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

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

From: [e-mail]               08-Nov-99 02:48:28
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 05:18:18
Subj: Re: VisualAge 4 troubles

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 15:14:23 -0800, Julien Pierre wrote:

>Our only hope is that IBM will come to their sensess and make a VAC++
>4.1 with a command-line interface. EMX/g++ is a rather awful C++
>compiler and I would not touch it with a 10-foot pole, on any platform.

Yes, VisualAge 4 is really bad.   To use it efficiently, I would have to toss
my notebook and get another one just so I can use it.   I did that last time
- upgraded to 128M of ram and a very fast CPU (at the time) - a K62 266.
Now, I can hardly start the compiler and be productive.

I am still sticking to Watcom 11.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                         08-Nov-99 07:55:28
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 05:18:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

>>> -- snip --

>>>>> Uh, the fact of the matter is that InfoZip's unzip utility is
>>>>> indeed far less capable than WinZip,

>>>> Is it less capable at unzipping the file in question than WinZip,
>>>> Curtis?

>>> Does one have to run OS/2 in order to extract the contents of (an
>>> uncorrupt) JAVAINUF.EXE, Dave?

>> 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 have already answered that question, at least a couple of times.

Why do you continue to ignore the answer, Curtis?

> Having more reading comprehension problemns, Dave?

Obviously not.  Rather, you seem to be, considering how often you
keep asking me the same question.

>>> Answer my question in an honest and forthright manner, and you will
>>> have the answer to your question.

>> I've already done that several times, Curtis.  Having more reading
>> comprehension problems?

> And I have already answered yours.

By claiming that you're not suffering from reading comprehension
problems, despite ignoring what I've told you on several occasions.

> -- snip --

>> I said it was incomplete, Curtis, not corrupt.  I have no evidence
>> to support a claim that any of the bytes are incorrect.

>>> and that you knew this,

>> On the contrary, at the time I posted the output from InfoZip, I had
>> no knowledge of any problem with the file.

> Yet you repeatedly claimed that it was logical to conclude that any
> other unzip tool would react the same as InfoZip,

That came later, Curtis, after the incompleteness of the file was
discovered.  Why do you continue to ignore the chronology?

> and ignored evidence that WinZip could extract the contents of
> JAVAINUF.EXE,

Why shouldn't I, given that WinZip wasn't dealing with my copy of
the file, Curtis?

> claiming that the evidence (which you didn't bother to examine)

Why should I, given that WinZip wasn't dealing with my copy of
the file, Curtis?

> didn't deal with *your* (presumably uncorrupt) copy of the file.

Presumed "uncorrupt" by whom, Curtis?  You?  I told you that WinZip
couldn't make bytes magically appear, yet that was nothing more than
a "riddle" to you.

>>> yet failed to retract your claim that you could extract its
>>> contents on OS/2 makes it bogus, Dave.

>> Balderdash, Curtis.  See above for why.

> You did retract your claim?

Having more reading comprehension problems, Curtis?  I already told
you that I had chosen the runtime environment without unicode support,
and had no trouble running the self-extracting archive, which included
a separate copy of the infamous classes.zip file.

> Before finally stating outright that your copy was "incomplete?"

Illogical, Curtis.  Why should I change any claim *before* knowing
that there's a problem with the file?

> Or only *after* the corrupt nature of your copy

I said it was incomplete, Curtis, not corrupt.  I have no evidence
to support a claim that any of the bytes are incorrect.

> was made known to all interested parties?

Who are "all" the interested parties, Curtis?

>>>>> involving the use of the tool in a failed attempt at unzipping a
>>>>> file that I, Marty and Mike know WinZip to be capable of unzipping,

>>>> Incorrect, Curtis.  You don't know that WinZip is capable of
>>>> unzipping my copy of the javainuf.exe file.

>>> In that Mike Timbol wasn't examining the contents of your copy while
>>> discussing the presence/absence of "Java 2 Security Classes," and never
>>> even claimed as much, your copy is irrelevant.

>> I see you still can't keep the chronology straight, Curtis.  At the
>> time Timbol made his claim, there was no reason to suspect any
>> difference in the files, thus my copy was just as relevant as his.

> Yet you claimed it to be logical to expect all unzip tools to react the
> same way (i.e. with error messages) with "the same file as argument,"

Which came later, Curtis, after the incompleteness of my copy of the
file had been determined.  See what I mean about your inability to
keep the chronology straight?  ("inability" = "inept")

> in spite of the fact that Marty, Mike and I did successfully extract
> the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE using one of those other unzip tools.

Not using my copy of the file, Curtis.

> Either your belief that all tools should react the same was misguided
> and wrong

Illogical, given that WinZip can't make the proper bytes magically
appear, Curtis.  Of course, I've told you that before.  Your reading
comprehension problem persists.

> (based on your having "no reason to suspect any difference in the
> files" when WinZip did react differently),

Still can't keep the chronology straight, eh Curtis?  I saw no reason
to suspect any difference in the files at the time I posted the error
message, not after WinZip reportedly reacted differently.

> or you did know that your copy 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.

> (in which case you could have confidence in your belief that all
> other unzip tools would react the same way your InfoZip unzip tool
> reacted,

I had confidence that other unzip tools would fail *after* I
determined that my copy of the file was incomplete.  I made that
determination *after* it was reported that WinZip could read the
file.  Those reports were made *after* I posted the error message
generated by InfoZip.

Do try to keep the chronology straight, Curtis.  To do otherwise
makes you look, to use your word, "inept".

> in spite of WinZip's ability to extract the contents of a
> different copy of JAVAINUF.EXE).

Did anyone who used WinZip know that the copy was different, Curtis?

> -- snip --

>>> So, you are saying that you didn't look at presented evidence, but
>>> argued against it anyway.

>> The so-called "evidence" didn't deal with my copy of javainuf.exe,
>> Curtis.

> But just above, you state that there was "no reason to suspect any
> difference in the files,"

At the time I posted the error message, Curtis.  I'm truly amazed at
how many times I can tell you this, yet it still hasn't sunk in.

> Dave, so the fact that the evidence you ignored "didn't deal with
> [your] copy of javainuf.exe" is irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant to the claim that WinZip is
somehow superior to InfoZip in its ability to unzip a zip archive.
Of course, I've also told you that several times.  Are you ignoring
what I've written to simply give you some reason for perpetuating
your responses?

>>> No surprise there.

>> No surprise that you failed to comprehend that which I've already
>> told you previously.

>>> And you are supposed to be a scientist.

>> And what are you supposed to be, Curtis?  And where did you get that
>> "supposed" nonsense from?  Of course, I asked you once before, but
>> you simply ignored the questions.

> And will do so now, for your questions are irrelevant.

On the contrary, my questions are just as relevant as the remark of
yours that they address.

>>> Do all scientists ignore presented evidence, Dave?

>> I don't speak for all scientists, Curtis.

>>> Or just you?

>> How ironic, coming from someone who has been ignoring evidence.

> What evidence have I ignored, Dave?

The chronology, for one.  The second and second last lines of a
Timbol quotation showing an undisputable reference to classes.zip,
for another.

>> I guess it's okay for you, because you're not a scientist.  I can
>> certainly see why not.

> Typical invective.

On what basis do you make that claim, Curtis?  After all, you did
insist that "self-deluded" was not "invective".  Do try to be
consistent with your arguments.

> The usual strategy for someone who lacks a logical argument.

I do not lack a logical argument, Curtis.  See above.

>>> -- [repetitious diversions snipped] --

>> What allegedly "repetitious diversions", Curtis?

> The ones I snipped, Dave.

Circular reasoning, Curtis.

> Reading comprehension problems?

Obviously not.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         08-Nov-99 08:06:19
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 05:18:18
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451491

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Well, Marty only added one thread today, so the digest is finally
succeeding in saving bandwidth, something that Marty dishonestly
claimed he would do by responding to me only when he perceived an
attempt on my part to address an issue, and by ignoring what he
perceived to be "baby-talk tripe".  Nevertheless, he's been responding
to postings that he insists are part of an "infantile game" on my part,
which is evidence for the dishonesty of his earlier claim.  As for his
own "infantile game", there's more evidence in all the invective and
unsubstantiated claims contained in his first response from today's
digest:

1> Despite the fact that I have continued to correct poor misguided
1> Tholen, he felt the need to again remove all the context from my
1> statements and respond to them with the same single line that wasn't
1> appropriate before.  Too bad it's still not appropriate and is more
1> evidence of idiocy and infantile behavior.  Unfortunately also, we've
1> had more of such evidence in this very newsgroup, let alone what he
1> posts elsewhere, than we could have possibly needed to reasonably
1> conclude everything we needed to know about his "reasoning abilities"
1> and "skill set".  Therefore, further such evidence is completely
1> unnecessary, yet he still feels the need to provide it.  How
1> embarassing.  He even had the audacity to use the same moronic
1> material in his opening paragraph, which was somehow supposed to
1> "justify" this action, and added even more idiocy to it.  It seems
1> that the only useful purpose that can be derived from Tholen's posts
1> is a spelling correction or two, whose functionality can easily be
1> performed by a dictionary or spell checker for those of us that are
1> anal-retentive enough to care, as Tholen seems to be.  Too bad his
1> command of facts, knowledge, common sense, and pertinent information
1> is nowhere near as strong as his command of his spell-checker or
1> Eliza program.

"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> Why should he have to choose when both are obviously true?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     08-Nov-99 09:20:18
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 05:18:18
Subj: Re: Warp users running Be?

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>

For an OS/2 user's perspective, check:
http://www.tstonramp.com/~freiheit/beos.shtml

For applications:
http://www.bebits.com
http://www.be.com/software/beware/

Actually, for modern hardware, out of the box, I'd say Be is much better
supported than Warp. Installing my printer (Epson Photo 700) was simply
a case of drag 'n drop. No reboot. I think alot of Warp users are using
Be because of the *feel*. I've never felt like washing my hands after
using Be or Warp....unlike another "os" we all know and despise.

Corey
Mirage Media
Nuenen, The Netherlands

Fine Art Nudes Kyoto
http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/photos/gallery/C_SHADOW/index.html
Polaroid Transfer Art
http://www.frii.com/~uliasz/photoart/polaroid/t_gallery/corey.htm

Mike Trettel wrote:
>
> On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 18:57:25 -0600, William Pridgen <[e-mail]>
wrote:
> >On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 12:06:45 -0500, Mirage Media <[e-mail]>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many people here running Warp have
> >>also started using Be? While at Warpstock Europe last month, I noticed
> >>several people sporting Be t-shirts. Also, in the Be newsgroups, people
> >>are constantly saying "well, in OS/2 we do it like this....
> >
> >I have Be 4.5 installed.
>
> Given that it's Yet Another Operating System, what is the real reason for
> using it?  I ask because I'm curious enough to want to try it, yet I
> really can't find a compelling reason to do so.  Far less applications
> than Warp, much less hardware support, etc., and yet the idea of a clean
> slate sounds very interesting.  Can you offer any positive reasons for
> trying it, outside of curiousity?
>
> >
> >--
> >Bill Pridgen
> >--
> >[e-mail]
>
> --
> ===========
> Mike Trettel    trettel (Shift 2) fred (dinky little round thing) net
>
> I don't buy from spammers.  No exceptions.  Fix the reply line to mail me.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               08-Nov-99 12:31:09
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 10:31:26
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: [e-mail] (irfon)

On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:41:58 +1000, Christopher Smith <[e-mail]> wrote:

>Have you run BeOS under similarly large memory loads (ie run heaps of big
>apps) to see how well it performs while swapping ?
>Not that I don't think BeOS is good, but if you've never had its memory
>usage at more than, say, 50MB on a 128MB machine whereas your NT mameory
>usage was regularly around the 140MB mark it's hardly a fair comparison, is
>it :).

I've actually run them both under similar loads before, and have always found
Be much more responsive than NT under load.  In particular, it excels when
you load it for CPU usage.  NT with 100% processor usage (except when one of
the apps is specifically designed to curb its CPU usage, like if you have
100% only because you are running the RC5 client, for instance) is much less
responsive than Be with 100% processor usage is.  When you simply compare
them under memory load, there doesn't seem to be as much of a difference,
although it's hard to say because I'm not aware of an easy way to monitor
Be's VM size on the fly (there probably is one, but one I just am not yet
aware of), so in both cases we are talking about systems not under heavy
strain (i.e. the memory image fits in physical memory).  These were not
scientific tests, but I have sat down and specifically tried to load both
Be and NT to see how they react.

This is not to undermine NT's usefulness.  I think responsiveness under
heavy load was simply higher up the design importance chain for Be, since
they were specifically targeting multimedia applications which require
responsive performance under heavy load.  NT has many features which are
not part of this goal which Be lacks, such as a significantly more robust
security model (okay, let's be honest -- such as a security model of any
kind, since Be more or less has none).


--
Irfon-Kim Ahmad
http://members.home.com/irfon/ahmadi/

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network Canada (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             08-Nov-99 18:15:25
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 20:06:28
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <805rfv$jak$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Curtis Bass writes:
>
> > -- snip --
>
> >> Your perceptions are irrelevant, Curtis.  Reality is relevant.
>
> > Such as the reality that you jumped to an erroneous conclusion when
> > you stated that one had to run OS/2 in order to extract the contents
> > of JAVAINUF.EXE, for example?
>
> 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?

Like I have said elsewhere:

1) Run the self-extraction module on a system
   that ***DOES*** support OS/2 applications.

2) Believe someone who says that they ***CAN***
   extract the contents of the archive ***WITHOUT***
   running OS/2.

You didn't select either one of these choices, Dave, but tries to argue
against both of them. That was inept.

> > Or the reality that you ignore presented evidence, yet argue against
> > it anyway?
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who dishonestly ignored (and
> deleted) text (namely Timbol's reference to classes.zip) and
> introduced older text to make it look like a different file was being
> referred to.

Hilarious!

All I did was restore the full context of the discussion, but then I
have noted your problems with context in the past. It's no wonder that
you would accuse me of "dishonesty" when all I did was to restore
context.

"Make it look like," Dave? You are really stretching. Why not ask Mike
Timbol which file he was referring to when he said, "It proves I can
read the file?"

> > Hey, that's really scientific, Dave . . .
>
> You're presupposing that I've ignored presented evidence and argued
> against it anyway.  Where's your evidence for that having happened,
> Curtis?

In the "Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!" thread,
Dave


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: [e-mail]                             08-Nov-99 19:41:27
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 20:06:28
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: [e-mail]

In article <805sfi$jak$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Curtis Bass writes:

-- snip --

> > For the record, what Dave snipped is a ***SUPERSET*** of what he
> > "restored."
>
> For the record, what Curtis snipped contains the crucial lines I was
> referring to when I wrote "second and second last lines of the first
> quotation above".

Which I subsequently included in my expanded reproduction of the
context. Granted, these lines were no longer the "second and last lines
of the quotation above," but the text in question was indeed present.

> By removing them, there was no "first quotation above" that new
> readers could have referred to.

They would have encountered them in previous posts of the thread, and
could have gone back to said previous posts were they so inclined. Also,
this accusation dosn't address the fact that I did include the lines in
question when I restored the expanded context.

> Rather, you buried them in what you call a "superset", and new readers
> would not have been able to follow my reference to the "second and
> second last lines of the first quotation above".

Were they so inclinded, they could have consulted earlier posts, or Deja
News, where the full context of the exchange is intact.

> > Of course, anyone following this thread (and you have my sympathy
> > if you are) already knows this.
>
> Anyone following this thread already knows that the list of classes
> that Timbol used to try and prove that Java 2 security classes aren't
> in the JDK is contained in the file classes.zip, Curtis.  Anyone
> following this thread already knows that the security enhancements
> were in a separate file, namely secma.zip, thus Timbol's "evidence"
> was a diversion.

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.

Ask Mike what he meant when he said, "It proves I can read the file."
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?

Mike, if you are reading this, what did you mean?


-- 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: [e-mail]                          08-Nov-99 20:07:17
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 20:06:28
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>David T. Johnson
>If you are an OS/2 user and you've wondered why past OS/2 Software
>Developers have mysteriously folded their tents and ran, not walked,
>away from OS/2 (including IBM), here is a BIG reason:

Again, as an ex-OS/2 developer who has also listened to and conversed
with other ex-OS/2 developers, I know that judge's "finding of fact"
has little bearing to reality. OS/2 developers abandoned OS/2 mostly
because they completely lost any faith in IBM as a "partner" (and I
use that term is the loosest sense). I've outlined a lot of reasons
for that in my other posts here, and cited examples of the opinions of
ex-OS/2 developers.

Perhaps if the judge had actually *heard* from real, ex-OS/2
developers (instead of merely companies that gave OS/2 cheap lip
service, but who otherwise never invested much of their revenue in it,
such as IBM and Lotus), he'd know the truth about what happened. I
think that it's most telling that the judge rendered such a "finding
of fact", and even mentioned OS/2 as an example to prove his point,
and yet he didn't even hear from Brad Wardell. Was someone at IBM
afraid that Wardell would repeat some of the things that Brad says in
his "history of OS/2" on Stardock's web site, and inform the judge of
how prominently IBM's incompetence and lack of commitment to a niche
product figured into OS/2's "lack of success"? Did some arm pulling go
on to exclude the views of ex-OS/2 developers? I don't recall any real
OS/2 developers testifying. All I recall seeing at the trial were
failed Windows/MS-DOS ISVs such as IBM, Netscape, and Caldera.

I strongly suggest that OS/2 endusers also start talking to ex-OS/2
developers. The former will learn a lot that they unfortunately never
knew before. Perhaps this will help them prevent making that same
mistakes they did with OS/2, should they happen to try advocating
another niche product.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                   08-Nov-99 11:55:19
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 20:06:28
Subj: Re: The Words of the Judge

From: [e-mail] (Tim Smith)

William Sonna <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> As an ex-OS/2 developer, I can say with absolute certainty that my
>> decision to leave OS/2 had nothing whatsoever to do with any so-called
>> "MS monopoly". (In fact, I had been using "non-MS products" for a
>> decade before even getting into OS/2. As a developer, I can go
>> wherever *I* want to go).
>>
>
>If the huge installed base of Windows isn't/wasn't a mafor factor in
>your decisions, then I'd have to say you are an extremely poor
>developer, regardless of your programming or program design abilities.
> I don't see how anyone with any kind of a business mind could ignore
>the realities of the marketplace.

Why?  The many companies that develop for both Windows and MacOS prove
that it is feasible to support more than one platform.  OS/2 is a lot
closer to Windows from a developers points of view that MacOS is, by
the way.

--Tim Smith

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Archimedes Plutonium Grepping Society (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             08-Nov-99 19:13:20
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 20:06:28
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <805u6u$k6g$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Curtis Bass writes:

-- snip --

> > In that my copy proves the error of your claim that one has to run
> > OS/2 in order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE,
>
> My claim wasn't based on your copy of the file, Curtis, thus your copy
> of the file is indeed irrelevant to my claim.

Regardless of whose file it was based on, the claim was erroneous.

My copy proves the error of the claim.

> > it is not surprising that you would try and dismiss my copy as
> > "irrelevant."
>
> It's not surprising because it is indeed irrelevant, as I explained
> above.

"Irrelevant" to your erroneous claim, perhaps, but not to the disproof
thereof.

> >> 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?
>
> > Running the self-extraction on some system that *does* support OS/2
> > applications, Dave.
>
> Thus my conclusion is perfectly logical, Curtis.

"Logical" perhaps, but erroneous, nonetheless. I never said that your
claim was "illogical," Dave.

Only that it was wrong.

Which it is.

> > I have already suggested this, but your rather insipid reply was
> > that it wasn't "necessary."
>
> Having more reading comprehension problems, Curtis?  What I called
> unnecessary was the need for me to execute javainuf.exe,

Which is to say, what you called unnecessary was the need to run the
JAVAINUF.EXE self-extraction . . .

> because I had already extracted the classes.zip file from the other
> runtime environment.  That extraction *was* performed by running the
> executable on an OS/2 system.

So you naturally jumped to the erroneous comclusion that that was the
*ONLY* way to make the extraction.

Yes, Dave, that is quite "logical."  (ROTFLMAO!)

-- snip --

> How is that allegedly "inept", Curtis?  If a lab instructor gives a
> student a voltmeter that happens to be malfunctioning, though in a way
> not obvious to the student, and the student winds up making
> measurements in a proper way, but unknowingly getting incorrect
> results because of the malfunction, and reporting those results in his
> lab report, in what way is the student "inept"?

If the student insists that his measurements are valid, and he
insists that those of three other students' aren't (because they are
quite different from his), then the student in question is either inept
or arrogant, perhaps both.

In any case, he is wrong.

> As someone who has served as a lab instructor, I can state that such
> situations have occurred.  Indeed, the fact that the voltmeter was
> malfunctioning wasn't even known to the instructor.  The malfunction
> was discovered when trying to reproduce the student's surprising
> results.
>
> Now, suppose you're the student and the instructor gave you a failing
> grade and called you "inept" for getting the wrong answer using a
> malfunctioning instrument.  How would you react?

I see you are trying to lead me down your own path again. Unfortunately,
your lab assignment example is an inappropriate anaolgy, because, in
most such cases, the student is expected to work alone, or in a
predetemined team, which precludes the sharing of information that might
indicate that the student in question is indeed getting incorrect
results.

If information sharing was allowed during the lab assignment, and the
student in question deliberately ignored evidence that his fellow
students tried to provide him, evidence which suggested that the student
in question was getting incorrect results, and the student in question
ended up with a failing grade, then you tell me, was the student inept?
Or arrogant? Or both?

-- 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: [e-mail]                         08-Nov-99 14:17:02
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 20:06:28
Subj: Re: MS is a monopoly - but here is a legit questrion

From: Forrest Gehrke <[e-mail]>

Joseph wrote:
>
> IBM also lost billions of dollars - convincing the judge they were no longer
a
> monopolist.  MS would do best if they were broken up.  To have limitations
put
> on MS would make them as inept as IBM was in the 80's.

Breaking up MS, how? Many talk of breaking MS into an OS and an
Apps company.  Both, by this time, are monopolies by themselves.
What is the remedy here for Judge Jackson's finding of fact?

Monopolies are not illegal, but using one to muscle into
another product market is illegal (Sherman Antitrust Act).
What they did to Netscape is just one of many such acts.
Anyone recall Central Point's utilities? Or where is the
company that developed Word Perfect? These are only two
companies whose products were once leaders but which became
included in MSdos or were bundled for "free" when a PC was
purchased.

Incidentally, where is the choice that consumers are
often cited as having insisted upon MS?  The only
item that consumers insisted upon when purchasing
a PC they wanted to run when they turned on the power.
That meant a bundled OS.

The remedy now requires that MS be hamstrung in some manner from
being able to continue doing what they have done (using a monopoly
position to take over another prodcut market).  Since they broke
the law the field can be made unlevel for them--that can be the
punishment.  This is what IBM had to live with the Consent Agreement
they were under for 30 years while their competitors were not so
burdened.

Another argument often cited is "Where is the harm that MS
put upon the consumer?" The average price of a PC has dropped to
a third of what it was only three years ago. This has come about
because of intense competition among the hardware vendors.
But isn't it interesting that while this was happening the
price of MS OS has remained little changed to the point that
today that is an appreciable percentage of the price of a PC?
Would this condition exist if there were real competition?
//

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: AT&T WorldNet Services (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          08-Nov-99 19:50:06
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 20:06:28
Subj: Re: The Words of the Judge

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Bennie Nelson
>He attempts to use anecdotal evidence from his own
>experience to prove a universal point.

You mean how like Tholen attempts to use anecdotal evidence from his
own experience to totally dismiss the points of anyone who mentions
that they've had a problem with OS/2?

But of course, what you "obviously" fail to see is that I'm *hardly*
the only OS/2 developer who feels that IBM and OS/2 developers were a
bad match due to the fact that IBM is not a company that should be
selling a niche market item, nor dealing with anyone other than
Fortune 500 companies placing large orders for big ticket IBM
products. As I pointed out before (and you've failed to grasp because
you're only an enduser who *thinks* that he knows what is on the minds
of OS/2 developers who dealt with IBM), this is a prevalent view among
ex-OS/2 developers. You should actually talk to some of them, and read
posts that they written on the subject, so you'll learn about this.

The fact that you don't even know what some OS/2 developers have said
about IBM in this regard (some of which I've pointed out in my posts)
underscores that you do not know anything about OS/2 developers.

It always surprises me how little OS/2 Advocates actually know about
their very own market and support. That's quite telling in of itself.
It points to one very big reason why OS/2 Advocacy has been a dismal
failure.

>The flaws in that method are quite obvious.

If true, then it's telling that those methods aren't "obvious" to you
when Tholen employs them.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     08-Nov-99 21:25:25
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 20:06:28
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>

Can you please tell me why most of OS/2's development is now done in
Europe and not the US? Could it be that Microsoft isn't able to throw
it's weight around here quite as much as they've done in the US?

Corey
Mirage Media
Nuenen, The Netherlands

Fine Art Nudes Kyoto
http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/photos/gallery/C_SHADOW/index.html
Polaroid Transfer Art
http://www.frii.com/~uliasz/photoart/polaroid/t_gallery/corey.htm



Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >David T. Johnson
> >If you are an OS/2 user and you've wondered why past OS/2 Software
> >Developers have mysteriously folded their tents and ran, not walked,
> >away from OS/2 (including IBM), here is a BIG reason:
>
> Again, as an ex-OS/2 developer who has also listened to and conversed
> with other ex-OS/2 developers, I know that judge's "finding of fact"
> has little bearing to reality. OS/2 developers abandoned OS/2 mostly
> because they completely lost any faith in IBM as a "partner" (and I
> use that term is the loosest sense). I've outlined a lot of reasons
> for that in my other posts here, and cited examples of the opinions of
> ex-OS/2 developers.
>
> Perhaps if the judge had actually *heard* from real, ex-OS/2
> developers (instead of merely companies that gave OS/2 cheap lip
> service, but who otherwise never invested much of their revenue in it,
> such as IBM and Lotus), he'd know the truth about what happened. I
> think that it's most telling that the judge rendered such a "finding
> of fact", and even mentioned OS/2 as an example to prove his point,
> and yet he didn't even hear from Brad Wardell. Was someone at IBM
> afraid that Wardell would repeat some of the things that Brad says in
> his "history of OS/2" on Stardock's web site, and inform the judge of
> how prominently IBM's incompetence and lack of commitment to a niche
> product figured into OS/2's "lack of success"? Did some arm pulling go
> on to exclude the views of ex-OS/2 developers? I don't recall any real
> OS/2 developers testifying. All I recall seeing at the trial were
> failed Windows/MS-DOS ISVs such as IBM, Netscape, and Caldera.
>
> I strongly suggest that OS/2 endusers also start talking to ex-OS/2
> developers. The former will learn a lot that they unfortunately never
> knew before. Perhaps this will help them prevent making that same
> mistakes they did with OS/2, should they happen to try advocating
> another niche product.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                08-Nov-99 21:50:07
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 20:06:28
Subj: Re: Warp users running Be?

From: [e-mail] (Mike Trettel)

On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 17:00:25 -0500, Mirage Media <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>I don't think any Be user actually sits around watching half a dozen
>videos at one time. However, the very fact that one *can* while
>simultaneously browsing the internet, downloading a file, sending email
>and image editing (without any apparent strain or crashes) seems to
>highlight it's stability, strength and versatility.
>Anyway, I was not asking about anyone migrating to Be....I use use Warp
>(I actually own 7 legal copies including several developer betas and am
>waiting for Warp Server to arrive), Be, Solaris 7 and NeXT. I'm just
>curious about what attracts Warp users to *also* run Be.

I'm sort of replying to my own earlier reply to Bill Pridgen, and to your
own posting above, so here goes...

It seems to me that Be is designed to be used in much the same fashion as
Warp-object oriented, heavily multithreaded, et al.  That seems to me to
be at least part of the "hook".  It also seems to be even more obscure
than Warp, and yet at the same time attracting real attention due to MS's
present legal woes.  That seems to also attract OS/2 users to at least
consider it for part time use.  As to myself I've broken down enough to
pick up a copy (Best Buy needs to be destroyed, NOW) and will wrestle it
into place after the usual malarky of making insurance backups of my
present setup and splitting off yet another partition.  It should be noted
that Opera Software has released a beta for Be, and that Sun and Be have
just announced that Java 2 will be available for Be.  Plus, Be comes
with an IDE, so (hopefully) I can get the usual Unix stuff set up
and running OK. That's enough to encourage me to at least try it out.

 >
>Corey
>Mirage Media
>Nuenen, The Netherlands
>
>Fine Art Nudes Kyoto
>http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/photos/gallery/C_SHADOW/index.html
>Polaroid Transfer Art
>http://www.frii.com/~uliasz/photoart/polaroid/t_gallery/corey.htm


--
===========
Mike Trettel    trettel (Shift 2) fred (dinky little round thing) net

I don't buy from spammers.  No exceptions.  Fix the reply line to mail me.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               08-Nov-99 23:51:23
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 21:19:01
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: [e-mail] (Esther Schindler)

On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:55:55, Mirage Media <[e-mail]> wrote:

| Now we know why MGI released a demo of their photo software on the Warp
| applications sampler disk and never followed through with an actual
| working product. Bastards.

No, it was because IBM screwed MGI on the contract. You can lay that
one at the feet of Wally Casey.

--Esther


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               08-Nov-99 23:49:25
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 21:19:01
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs...Judge Jackson says...

From: [e-mail] (Esther Schindler)

Microsoft can be a bully *and* IBM can be an utter idiot.

These are not mutually exclusive attitudes.

--Esther

On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:25:59, "David T. Johnson"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

|
|
| Esther Schindler wrote:
| >
| > On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:53:47, "David T. Johnson"
| > <[e-mail]> wrote:
| > | I appreciate your viewpoint but you haven't mentioned anything that
| > | would have prevented an OS/2 version from being released.  Given
| > | reasonable care, the code would have been expected to be available if
| > | such a project were to be undertaken.  Yes, the code could have been
| > | lost but this is highly unlikely and is not what we should automatically
| > | assume unless you have evidence to the contrary.
| >
| > Unless the code was lost or wasn't part of the transfer of ownership
| > (which is more probable than you might think), we could presume (in
| > the absence of facts) that there were no technical barriers to
| > finishing the "it's almost done" WP6OS2 code. By the time Corel owned
| > the software, however, there were plenty of _people_ reasons that made
| > such a project unlikely... not the least of which was that its
| > champions were long gone, that the people involved had fled or were
| > working on another project for years or whatever. In any large
| > corporation, starting a new project (or worse, reviving one long gone)
| > requires a champion, someone who really believes in it. And Corel
| > never had a champion for OS/2 that I could tell. (If it did, that
| > person was shot very early on, long before WPCorp arrived.)
| >
| > All that happens inside a company without _any_ outside influence,
| > whether the project in question is providing day-care facilities for
| > employees' children or developing an application for a
| > new-to-the-company operating system. Projects can die or be
| > inadequately funded or whatever for plenty of political reasons that
| > have *nothing* to do with Microsoft or any outside influence.
| >
| > | Well, I might have agreed with you before the MS antitrust trial wrapped
| > | up but after seeing MS business practices exposed, it is extremely hard
| > | to believe that Microsoft did NOT whump on Wordperfect until their OS/2
| > | projects were dead or disabled.  Do you REALLY believe that MS didn't do
| > | that?
| >
| > Yes, that's what I really believe.
|
| Here is Judge Jackson's FINDING OF FACT in the Microsoft antitrust
| trial:
|
| Judge Jackson's Second Finding Of Fact: 'It is Microsoft's corporate
| practice to pressure other firms to halt software development that
| either shows the potential to weaken the applications barrier to entry
| or competes directly with Microsoft's most cherished sofware products.'
|
| (Now I'll have a better defense if Microsoft sues me for
| libel...Wouldn't you agree Esther?)
|
| >
| > --Esther


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

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

From: [e-mail]                             08-Nov-99 23:48:15
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 21:19:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <805vmd$k6g$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] 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?
>
> > I have already answered that question, at least a couple of times.
>
> Why do you continue to ignore the answer, Curtis?

Why would I ignore my own answer, Dave? It is you who ignores evidence.

I have stated that one choice is to run the (JAVAINUF.EXE)
self-extraction in OS/2. I have stated it a couple of times. I am not so
inept as to conclude that that is the only way to extract the contents
of the self-extracting archive (JAVAINUF.EXE).

> > Having more reading comprehension problemns, Dave?
>
> Obviously not.  Rather, you seem to be, considering how often you
> keep asking me the same question.

(LOL!!)  *You* are the one who asks the triple-chevroned question above,
over and over again, rather than admit your mistake.

What same question do I allegedly "keep asking" you, Dave?

-- snip --

> > Yet you repeatedly claimed that it was logical to conclude that any
> > other unzip tool would react the same as InfoZip,
>
> That came later, Curtis, after the incompleteness of the file was
> discovered.  Why do you continue to ignore the chronology?

I am not ignoring anything Dave.

> > and ignored evidence that WinZip could extract the contents of
> > JAVAINUF.EXE,
>
> Why shouldn't I, given that WinZip wasn't dealing with my copy of
> the file, Curtis?

You have yet to substantiate why that makes a difference.

Your claim was, "Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip
from requires you to run OS/2."

In the claim above, "the file" refers to JAVAINUF.EXE (not classes.zip,
as you would have us believe).

Your claim is wrong.

I already know your response:

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

As I have said before, one choice is to run the self-extraction on OS/2.
That does ***NOT*** substantiate your erroneous claim, however, because
it isn't the ***ONLY*** other choice.

It is illogical to suspect that you could run the self-extraction on
OS/2 yet simultaneously believe that all other unzip tools would react
the same way that InfoZip's unzip ustility reacted, because the
self-extraction code contained in JAVAINUF.EXE is, indeed, just another
unzip tool. Ergo, you could not extract the file by running the
self-extraction in OS/2.

> > claiming that the evidence (which you didn't bother to examine)
>
> Why should I, given that WinZip wasn't dealing with my copy of
> the file, Curtis?

Since you had no reason to "suspect any differences in the files", this
is an irrelevant dodge.

And either way, it still proves that your statement, "Funny, the file
you claim to have extracted classes.zip from requires you to run OS/2,"
was wrong.

I mean, which "copy of the file" are you discussing in that statement,
Dave? And, based on your postition that "your copy of the file" makes
any difference, then how can you make any definitive statements about
Mike's "copy of the file," based on your own anecdotal experience with
***YOUR*** "copy of the file?"

You cannot have it both ways, Dave.

> > didn't deal with *your* (presumably uncorrupt) copy of the file.
>
> Presumed "uncorrupt" by whom, Curtis?

By you, Dave: "On the contrary, at the time I posted the output from
InfoZip, I had no knowledge of any problem with the file."

So, at that time, the fact that Marty, Mike and I could extract the
contents of "the file" (i.e., JAVAINUF.EXE) using WinZip was just as
relevant as anything else presented in this thread. At that time, your
claim that "the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from
requires you to run OS/2" was soundly disproven, and the evidence
presented was quite relevant.

It wasn't until ***LATER*** when you discovered that your copy of
JAVAINUF.EXE was corrupt, that you tried to make it an issue, using it
to try and cover up your ineptitude.

But you refuse, yes ***REFUSE*** to admit your error when you stated,
"Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from requires
you to run OS/2"

Prove me wrong. Admit your error. I dare you!

> You?  I told you that WinZip couldn't make bytes magically appear,

Right. You decided to try and cover your ineptitude by making the
corruptness of your copy an issue.  Typical evasive strategy.

> yet that was nothing more than a "riddle" to you.

Of course, not, Dave. It was a riddle. I solved the riddle, but it was a
riddle, nonetheless.

-- snip --

> > You did retract your claim?
>
> Having more reading comprehension problems, Curtis?  I already told
> you that I had chosen the runtime environment without unicode support,
> and had no trouble running the self-extracting archive, which included
> a separate copy of the infamous classes.zip file.

So the answer is "no."

No surprises.

-- snip --

> Which came later, Curtis, after the incompleteness of my copy of the
> file had been determined.  See what I mean about your inability to
> keep the chronology straight?  ("inability" = "inept")

I have no such inablilty.  I am just following your lead.  I guess this
means that it's you who can't keep the chronology straight:

-- snip --

> I had confidence that other unzip tools would fail *after* I
> determined that my copy of the file was incomplete.  I made that
> determination *after* it was reported that WinZip could read the
> file.  Those reports were made *after* I posted the error message
> generated by InfoZip.

The earliest reference to the InfoZip error messages I could find was:

http://x41.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=541997971.2&CONTEXT=942102802.797442112
&hitnum=31

This was posted on October 29, 1999. The relevant dialog is:

Timbol: Such files are compressed using a standard archive format
Timbol: which is portable across platforms.

Tholen: Since when is the LX executable file format portable across
Tholen: platforms, Mike?  (See bytes 100 and 101 hex.)

Timbol: I used WinZip to unzip the file, Dave -- I didn't need OS/2.

Tholen: Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:

Tholen: ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
Tholen: ]   End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this
Tholen: ]   file is not a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a
Tholen: ]   multi-part archive.  In the latter case the central
Tholen: ]   directory and zipfile comment will be found on the last
Tholen: ]   disk(s) of this archive.
Tholen: ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an
Tholen: ] archive
Tholen: ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
Tholen: ]         and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

Clearly, Mike reported his ability to read the file (JAVAINUF.EXE, not
classes.zip, so spare us that diversion) using WinZip ***BEFORE*** you
posted your error message (like I said, this is the earliest reference I
could find on Deja News -- feel free to search for an earlier one
(LOL!!)), yet you just claimed that "Those reports were made *after* I
posted the error message generated by InfoZip."

So, who is the one so inept as to be unable to keep the chronology
straight, Dave?

Here is another example, also from October 29, 1999:

http://x41.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=541997971.3&CONTEXT=942102802.797442112
&hitnum=30

And the dialog:


Timbol: It's also an incorrect conclusion based on your ignorance.

Tholen: What alleged ignorance, Mike?

Timbol: I could read the contents of the file from Linux, Solaris,
Timbol: Windows NT, even DOS.

Tholen: DOS responds with:
Tholen:
Tholen: ] This program must be run under OS/2.

Timbol: I happened to use WinZip under Windows NT.

Tholen: Here's the output from InfoZip's unzipper, Mike:
Tholen:
Tholen: ] Archive:  ../javainuf.exe
Tholen: ]  End-of-central-directory signature not found.  Either this
Tholen: ]  file is not a zipfile, or it constitutes one disk of a
Tholen: ]  multi-part archive.  In the latter case the central directory
Tholen: ]  and zipfile comment will be found on the last disk(s) of this
Tholen: ]  archive.
Tholen: ] note:  ../javainuf.exe may be a plain executable, not an
Tholen: ] archive
Tholen: ] unzip:  cannot find zipfile directory in ../javainuf.exe,
Tholen: ]        and cannot find ../javainuf.exe.zip, period.

Feel free to find an article that supports your chronology, Dave.

> Do try to keep the chronology straight, Curtis.  To do otherwise
> makes you look, to use your word, "inept".

(ROTFLMAO!!)

-- snip --

> > But just above, you state that there was "no reason to suspect any
> > difference in the files,"
>
> At the time I posted the error message, Curtis.  I'm truly amazed at
> how many times I can tell you this, yet it still hasn't sunk in.

Look at the above exhibits, Dave. If you didn't suspect the copies of
the files to be different, then isn't it rather inept to post the output
of InfoZip's failed attempt to "counter" a report that WinZip could
successfully handle the archive in question?

-- snip --

> >>> And you are supposed to be a scientist.
>
> >> And what are you supposed to be, Curtis?  And where did you get
> >> that "supposed" nonsense from?  Of course, I asked you once before,
> >> but you simply ignored the questions.
>
> > And will do so now, for your questions are irrelevant.
>
> On the contrary, my questions are just as relevant as the remark of
> yours that they address.

Then perhaps you should have replied with "non sequitur."

> >>> Do all scientists ignore presented evidence, Dave?
>
> >> I don't speak for all scientists, Curtis.
>
> >>> Or just you?
>
> >> How ironic, coming from someone who has been ignoring evidence.
>
> > What evidence have I ignored, Dave?
>
> The chronology, for one.

On the contrary.  Unless you can find a reference earlier than October
29, 1999.

> The second and second last lines of a Timbol quotation showing an
> undisputable reference to classes.zip, for another.

"Undisputable" in your mind, perhaps . . .
>
> >> I guess it's okay for you, because you're not a scientist.  I can
> >> certainly see why not.
>
> > Typical invective.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Curtis?  After all, you did
> insist that "self-deluded" was not "invective".  Do try to be
> consistent with your arguments.

Snide remarks about my abilities are invective.  Stating my honest
belief that you are deluding yourself is not.

> > The usual strategy for someone who lacks a logical argument.
>
> I do not lack a logical argument, Curtis.  See above.

I am looking at "above," Dave, and see another error on your part (i.e.,
the chronology). Are you going to admit to this one, Dave?

-- 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: [e-mail]                               08-Nov-99 19:18:29
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 21:19:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> > I have already answered that question, at least a couple of times.
>
> Why do you continue to ignore the answer, Curtis?

Perhaps because there was none.  How ironic coming from a person (?) who
repeatedly ignored factual information presented to him from persons less
inept
than he.

> > Having more reading comprehension problemns, Dave?
>
> Obviously not.  Rather, you seem to be, considering how often you
> keep asking me the same question.

How ironic and hypocritical, coming from a person (?) who reposts the same
irrelevant questions some 20 odd times in a given post.

> >>> Answer my question in an honest and forthright manner, and you will
> >>> have the answer to your question.
>
> >> I've already done that several times, Curtis.  Having more reading
> >> comprehension problems?
>
> > And I have already answered yours.
>
> By claiming that you're not suffering from reading comprehension
> problems, despite ignoring what I've told you on several occasions.

http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

> > -- snip --
>
> >> I said it was incomplete, Curtis, not corrupt.  I have no evidence
> >> to support a claim that any of the bytes are incorrect.
>
> >>> and that you knew this,
>
> >> On the contrary, at the time I posted the output from InfoZip, I had
> >> no knowledge of any problem with the file.
>
> > Yet you repeatedly claimed that it was logical to conclude that any
> > other unzip tool would react the same as InfoZip,
>
> That came later, Curtis, after the incompleteness of the file was
> discovered.

And Dave's ineptitude was further highlighted.

> Why do you continue to ignore the chronology?

One can't ignore what isn't there.

> > and ignored evidence that WinZip could extract the contents of
> > JAVAINUF.EXE,
>
> Why shouldn't I, given that WinZip wasn't dealing with my copy of
> the file, Curtis?
>
> > claiming that the evidence (which you didn't bother to examine)
>
> Why should I, given that WinZip wasn't dealing with my copy of
> the file, Curtis?
>
> > didn't deal with *your* (presumably uncorrupt) copy of the file.
>
> Presumed "uncorrupt" by whom, Curtis?  You?

By anyone who mistakenly thought that Dave was forthright enough to check his
own "evidence" before shooting off his hypocritical mouth.  Who would make
such
an assumption at this stage in the game is beyond me.

> I told you that WinZip couldn't make bytes magically appear, yet that was
> nothing more than a "riddle" to you.

It was nothing more than an infantile guessing game.  How immature to
deliberately postpone revealing such a fact to play little infantile games and
cover up Dave's embarassment.

> >>> yet failed to retract your claim that you could extract its
> >>> contents on OS/2 makes it bogus, Dave.
>
> >> Balderdash, Curtis.  See above for why.
>
> > You did retract your claim?
>
> Having more reading comprehension problems, Curtis?  I already told
> you that I had chosen the runtime environment without unicode support,
> and had no trouble running the self-extracting archive, which included
> a separate copy of the infamous classes.zip file.

An irrelevant one, no less.  But that won't stop Dave from shooting off his
hypocritical mouth and speaking about the other archive that he didn't even
bother to view.

> > Before finally stating outright that your copy was "incomplete?"
>
> Illogical, Curtis.  Why should I change any claim *before* knowing
> that there's a problem with the file?

Right.  Dave always waits until after he makes a complete jackass out of
himself to change his claims.

> > Or only *after* the corrupt nature of your copy
>
> I said it was incomplete, Curtis, not corrupt.  I have no evidence
> to support a claim that any of the bytes are incorrect.

Dave had no evidence to support anything he was saying, but that never stops
him.  This is par for the course for our alleged "scientist".

> > was made known to all interested parties?
>
> Who are "all" the interested parties, Curtis?

Note:  Dave ineptly asks an irrelevant, yet obvious question, avoiding
answering the straightforward, relevant question addressed to him.  No
surprise
there.

> ("inability" = "inept")

Like Dave's inability to extract the archive, or his inability to download it.

> I had confidence that other unzip tools would fail *after* I
> determined that my copy of the file was incomplete.

Only, instead of informing those with whom he was arguing about this he chose
to play an infantile guessing game.

> I made that determination *after* it was reported that WinZip could read
> the file.  Those reports were made *after* I posted the error message
> generated by InfoZip.

So Dave didn't check his facts until *after* he was proven wrong.  Par for the
course for our astrologer.

> Are you ignoring what I've written to simply give you some reason for
> perpetuating your responses?

How completely ironic, coming from the person who refused to view relevant
evidence yet persisted to argue about it.

> >> I guess it's okay for you, because you're not a scientist.  I can
> >> certainly see why not.
>
> > Typical invective.
>
> On what basis do you make that claim, Curtis?  After all, you did
> insist that "self-deluded" was not "invective".  Do try to be
> consistent with your arguments.

Wrong.  He correctly asserted that calling *Dave Tholen* self-deluded is not
"invective".

> > The usual strategy for someone who lacks a logical argument.
>
> I do not lack a logical argument, Curtis.  See above.

There only seems to be a lack of a logical argument up there.

> >>> -- [repetitious diversions snipped] --
>
> >> What allegedly "repetitious diversions", Curtis?
>
> > The ones I snipped, Dave.
>
> Circular reasoning, Curtis.

How ironic.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             08-Nov-99 17:00:15
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 21:19:01
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Esther Schindler wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:55:55, Mirage Media <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> | Now we know why MGI released a demo of their photo software on the Warp
> | applications sampler disk and never followed through with an actual
> | working product. Bastards.
>
> No, it was because IBM screwed MGI on the contract. You can lay that
> one at the feet of Wally Casey.
>

Esther, you cling to this "IBM was stupid and rotten" theory and
completely ignore the possibility that IBM was pressured by Microsoft to
back away from OS/2 or else.  Not only is this a possibility, it is now
a FINDING OF FACT in a federal court case by a federal judge.  You
apparently completely missed several days of courtroom testimony by IBM
executives last summer.  You should find a transcript and read it.

Please reread Judge Jackson's Finding of Fact:

Judge Jackson's Second Finding Of Fact: 'It is Microsoft's corporate
practice to pressure other firms to halt software development that
either shows the potential to weaken the applications barrier to entry
or competes directly with Microsoft's most cherished sofware products.'

Is there some reason why you don't think that IBM was one of these
"other firms?"  IBM was not on a crusade to fight injustice.  They were
businessmen.  Microsoft had them in a headlock and there was nothing for
them to do but capitulate.  And they did.  Just like most other firms.
Just like those companies who were forced to sell out to Standard Oil 90
years ago.  Netscape had no choice but to fight to the end because
Microsoft was after their entire business, not just a part of it.  But
Netscape still lost in the end.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               08-Nov-99 20:13:15
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 21:19:01
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Curtis Bass writes:
>
> > -- snip --
>
> >>> Answer my question in an honest and forthright manner, and you will
> >>> have the answer to your question.
>
> >> I've already done that several times, Curtis.  Having more reading
> >> comprehension problems?
>
> > "Answering" a question with another (leading) question hardly qualifies
> > as "honest and forthright."
>
> On what basis do you make that claim?

How absurd and ironic to respond with such a leading question.

> The reasoning I used is both honest and forthright.

What alleged "reasoning"?

> If you don't like such answers,

Then change them to something that suits you better, the way Dave does.

> I can always use your approach,

Incorrect, as Dave has proven he is incapable of using logic, proof, and
common
sense.

> which involves deleting relevant text and inserting irrelevant text.

How ironic and hypocritical, given Dave's approach of cutting a sentence in
half and using the second half without regard to the first.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                 08-Nov-99 19:10:12
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 21:19:01
Subj: Re: Warp users running Be?

From: William Pridgen <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:57:16 -0500, David H. McCoy
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>How exactly did you determine that it is rock solid? Booting up and launching
a
>couple of programs hardly seems like an extensive test.

Where did I say that's all I did?

--
Bill Pridgen
--
[e-mail]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               08-Nov-99 20:20:03
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 21:19:01
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Curtis Bass writes:
>
> >>>>> OTOH, try to disagree with Tholen on a substantial issue (which is to
> >>>>> say, something other than the quality of ST Voyager as a Sci-Fi
series),
> >>>>> or, better yet, point out one of his erroneous statements, and see how
> >>>>> "humorous" he is then.
>
> >>>> Try to disagree with Bass on a substantial issue, and see how "civil"
> >>>> he is then.
>
> >>> Nobody, including myself, is claiming that I am "civil," Dave.
>
> >> You are claiming to not having made personal attacks against me.
>
> > Which is not the same as claiming that I am civil.
>
> Oh really?

Note the hypocritically indignant tone.

> Are you saying that you can make the sort of personal attacks
> I reproduced and still call them "civil"?

How hypocritical to expect other to remain civil whilst Dave hurls insults and
non-civility toward whomever he chooses.

> > -- snip --
>
> >>> Why not be polite to the rest of the newsgroup and move your off topic
> >>> discussion elsewhere?
>
> >> How ironic, coming from someone as impolite as you.
>
> > I see that you aren't above invective,
>
> How ironic.  I note that you are impolite and you call it "invective".

And I note that Dave is a complete hypocrite as he has insulted my abilities,
without witnessing or experiencing them, by saying that my employer had low
standards for hiring me.

> Meanwhile, you call me "self-deluded" and insist that it isn't "invective".
> Do make up your mind, Curtis.

What Dave fails to realize is that Curtis wasn't calling him a name, but, in
fact describing the behavior he witnessed.  Dave's behavior itself is what
insults Dave.

> > which is unfortunate, considering your sanctimonious obsession over the
> > alleged invective of others.
>
> Consider your own hypocrisy, Curtis.

How ironic, coming from the arch-hypocrite himself.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                     09-Nov-99 01:10:25
  To: All                                               08-Nov-99 21:19:01
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (Glen D)

On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 23:15:11 -0600, "Kelly Robinson"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>Quite.  I agree with you but not necessarily for the identical reasons.  But
>we agree and that is enough.
>
>Alternatives do exist.  They have existed, and they still exist according to
>the people who make them.
>
>Also, the people making those alternatives are dipshits in every sense of
>the word and more because they did not see how they were presenting
>themselves to the public, where it truly counts.
>
8< snip

>And IBM was so effing pathetic with OS/2, and to go so far as visibly show
>more support for NT than their own OS, why the hell is Microsoft being
>blamed for IBM's own f-ing incompetence?

Whilst IBM made some bad decisions regarding OS/2, you must also
remember that Microsoft worked hard to stop OEMs from pre-installing
anything other than Windows making it hard for any alternative OS to
gain ground.

>  Also consider that even in the
>days of OS/2 2.0, there have been just as many delays and resource concerns
>(as there are for Win2k today).  And OS/2 2.0 had so many bugs with its
>supposedly-superior 'Workplace Shell', let alone a system input queue which
>overloaded at the drop of a pin...
>
What bugs are you referring to exactly?  The problem with the system
input queue has been documented by IBM in their Redbooks along with a
way to avoid it.

>Justice is a joke (as if IBM and Apple aren't)!
>
>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...  why people, especially those in
>the IBM and apple arenas, don't understand this is well beyond me because
>it's true.

Microsoft are being punished for their underhanded business
techniques, forcing competitors to back down without a fight, all at
*no* benefit to the consumer.  Read the Finding of Facts for details.

> If I were a OS/2 user (and I was once) and saw IBM making more
>of a show for NT, I'd wonder why they were avoiding their own product.  At
>the time, as I was OS/2, I bitched at IBM for not showing their own product
>more often.

Again, the unfair deals Microsoft forced OEMs to accept made it
virtually impossible for alternative OSs to gain any support.

>  But now I have the delight of saying "You bastards, I told you
>so!  ha ha ha!" and I don't mind picking at IBM since they made the PC a
>piece of crap deliberately, knowing their name would sell it, knowing it
>would become a standard.

How do you know IBM *deliberately* made the PC crap?  It was
definitely a rushed job but hasn't it improved since then?

> IBM is the biggest fucker of them all.  They sold
>shit and invited Microsoft to work for them in a sense.  Yet Microsoft is
>getting all the blame and the OS/2 users have a reason to masturbate
>tonight.
>
Microsoft is being blamed for what Microsoft did, nothing else.

>How pathetic.
>
>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.

I don't need Microsoft (or anyone else) deciding what is best for me.
Microsoft should have released IE seperately to Windows and let the
public vote with their feet.

>
>Chad Myers <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>news:rC7V3.8334$[e-mail]...
>> You know, sometimes I get fed up with our worthless government,
>> especially the DOJ.
>>
>> Perhaps it should have read...
>>
>> "Since I am a frequently-appealed-and-overruled judge, and
>> I don't have the greatest track record, and Janet Reno and
>> Bill Clinton are trying to make a come-back from the mockery
>> of an administration they have bastardized, I find that Microsoft,
>> who really didn't do much wrong, is completely a Monopoly.
>>
>> Oh yeah.. forget all those viable alternatives, this is all
>> about me getting a legacy and Bill Clinton and Janet "the butcher
>> of Waco" Reno some save-face before their administration is over.
>>
>> Yeah, I know that this'll get overruled in appellate court, but
>> I don't care, because that usually doesn't make the headlines.
>>
>> So, not that Bill got his revenge for the campaign mishap, and
>> Janet looks like the big-bad-nasty-corporation-slayer for the
>> liberals, everything should be ok.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> Thomas Penfeld Jackson
>> (oh.. and I need 3 names so that I sound more lofty)"
>>
>> -Chad
>>
>>
>> David Negrette <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>> news:%m7V3.3838$[e-mail]...
>> > From http://news.excite.com/news/r/991105/21/tech-microsoft
>> >
>> > "Three main facts indicate that Microsoft enjoys monopoly power,"
>Jackson
>> > said, citing the company's large and stable market share, the high
>barriers
>> > to entering the computer software market, AND THE LACK OF A COMMERCIALLY
>> > VIABLE ALTERNATIVE TO THE WINDOWS OPERATING SYSTEM.
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Glen D
-<remove Z from my e-mail address>-

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            08-Nov-99 20:41:04
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Warp users running Be?

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>
>
>"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>>
>>
>> I thought about it because of the talk of great multitasking,
multithreading,
>> and C++ based programming API, but never got around to it. To me, the only
to
>> tell if it is any good is to whole-heartedly install it and use it and I
need
>> something more compelling than being able to run many video clips well.
>>
>
>> On a  "friendlier" note, I don't think you have to worry much about
migrations.
>> From what I've seen here, everyone who wanted to leave OS/2 has and you
more,
>> how shall we say, hardcore users...well if you can't be shaken by now, you
>> won't be by an predictions.
>>
>
>I don't think any Be user actually sits around watching half a dozen
>videos at one time. However, the very fact that one *can* while
>simultaneously browsing the internet, downloading a file, sending email
>and image editing (without any apparent strain or crashes) seems to
>highlight it's stability, strength and versatility.

Agreed. But if one gets this with one's current OS, with more hardware and
application support, what is the incentive to move?

>
>Corey
>Mirage Media
>Nuenen, The Netherlands
>
>Fine Art Nudes Kyoto
>http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/photos/gallery/C_SHADOW/index.html
>Polaroid Transfer Art
>http://www.frii.com/~uliasz/photoart/polaroid/t_gallery/corey.htm
>

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            08-Nov-99 20:44:27
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <Cv8mOO9yPlbKNzc5XM7kbMDzO=[e-mail]>, alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net
says...
>On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, Marcelo L. Meira posted :
>
>> Hobbyist wrote:
>> >
>> > On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, Joseph posted :
>> >
>> > <snip>
>> > > The list of people to attack is growing exponentially.  The Judge, the
DOJ, IBM,
>> > > LINUX, APPLE ...   Watching a cult crumble is enjoyable.
>> >
>> > What a laughable thing to say, if I'm getting your meaning correctly.
>> > What cult is that??
>>
>> Probably the cult of those who don't see the obvious. Truths are many,
>> but reality is only one.
>>
>> It's indeed very entertaining to see the black list growing so fast
>
>What does someone using a MS OS have to do with them agreeing with
>MS's business practices? Most users couldn't really care less or get
>emotional and obsessive about it. It's on these grounds that I ask
>what cult?
>
>I use NT. I think there are indeed grounds for a trial. Can you
>reconcile the two positions?
>
>

Indeed. I guess people some people just haven't grown enough to see an OS has
a
tool instead of a religion.

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               08-Nov-99 20:40:26
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451491

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

It would appear that Dave's threshold of embarassment has still not been
breached, as he continues to post "baby-talk tripe" (by his own admission)
further embarassing himself.  Today he decided he would hypocritically
concentrate on accusing others of "invective" while attempting to hurl his own
pathetically weak and stale brand of insults towards others in order to avoid
admitting to his many mistakes.  This is a refreshing change of pace from his
previous schtick of ignoring (by his own admission) hard evidence presented to
him and erroneously claiming it is irrelevant, whilst attempting to cover up
his blatant ineptitude and embarassing mistakes.

Tholen has time and again claimed that he addresses issues.  Nevertheless,
he's
been responding to postings that he insists are part of an "infantile game" on
my part, which is evidence for the dishonesty of his earlier claim.  As for
his
own "infantile game", there's more evidence in all the invective and
unsubstantiated claims contained in all of his postings in this thread.

I can swear I've read that somewhere else before, only it had more of a
hypocritical angle to it as I remember.

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Well, Marty only added one thread today, so the digest is finally
> succeeding in saving bandwidth, something that Marty dishonestly
> claimed he would do by responding to me only when he perceived an
> attempt on my part to address an issue, and by ignoring what he
> perceived to be "baby-talk tripe".  Nevertheless, he's been responding
> to postings that he insists are part of an "infantile game" on my part,
> which is evidence for the dishonesty of his earlier claim.  As for his
> own "infantile game", there's more evidence in all the invective and
> unsubstantiated claims contained in his first response from today's
> digest:
>
> 1> Despite the fact that I have continued to correct poor misguided
> 1> Tholen, he felt the need to again remove all the context from my
> 1> statements and respond to them with the same single line that wasn't
> 1> appropriate before.  Too bad it's still not appropriate and is more
> 1> evidence of idiocy and infantile behavior.  Unfortunately also, we've
> 1> had more of such evidence in this very newsgroup, let alone what he
> 1> posts elsewhere, than we could have possibly needed to reasonably
> 1> conclude everything we needed to know about his "reasoning abilities"
> 1> and "skill set".  Therefore, further such evidence is completely
> 1> unnecessary, yet he still feels the need to provide it.  How
> 1> embarassing.  He even had the audacity to use the same moronic
> 1> material in his opening paragraph, which was somehow supposed to
> 1> "justify" this action, and added even more idiocy to it.  It seems
> 1> that the only useful purpose that can be derived from Tholen's posts
> 1> is a spelling correction or two, whose functionality can easily be
> 1> performed by a dictionary or spell checker for those of us that are
> 1> anal-retentive enough to care, as Tholen seems to be.  Too bad his
> 1> command of facts, knowledge, common sense, and pertinent information
> 1> is nowhere near as strong as his command of his spell-checker or
> 1> Eliza program.
>
> "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> Why should he have to choose when both are obviously true?
>
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
>
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               08-Nov-99 20:56:14
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Warp users running Be?

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
> >
> >
> >"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> I thought about it because of the talk of great multitasking,
multithreading,
> >> and C++ based programming API, but never got around to it. To me, the
only to
> >> tell if it is any good is to whole-heartedly install it and use it and I
need
> >> something more compelling than being able to run many video clips well.
> >>
> >
> >> On a  "friendlier" note, I don't think you have to worry much about
migrations.
> >> From what I've seen here, everyone who wanted to leave OS/2 has and you
more,
> >> how shall we say, hardcore users...well if you can't be shaken by now,
you
> >> won't be by an predictions.
> >>
> >
> >I don't think any Be user actually sits around watching half a dozen
> >videos at one time. However, the very fact that one *can* while
> >simultaneously browsing the internet, downloading a file, sending email
> >and image editing (without any apparent strain or crashes) seems to
> >highlight it's stability, strength and versatility.
>
> Agreed. But if one gets this with one's current OS, with more hardware and
> application support, what is the incentive to move?

Precisely what I was pondering.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                 08-Nov-99 19:56:18
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: The Words of the Judge

From: William Pridgen <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 06:18:29 GMT, [e-mail] (Jeff
Glatt) wrote:

>Oh, there were a lot more things that went wrong than that.

[....]

Yes, I am acquainted with these issues.  Taken together, all this
makes one wonder how OS/2 did as well as it did, say, up to the
release of Warp 4.  It almost seems to have been doomed from the
start.  I'd like it to have turned out differently, but looking back,
it's hard to see how it could have.

--
Bill Pridgen
--
[e-mail]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                 08-Nov-99 20:19:17
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: The Words of the Judge

From: William Pridgen <[e-mail]>

On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 19:55:00 -0500, Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote:

>And it means IBM would gladly sell OS/2 rather than NT in order to move iron.

IBM seems to be selling a lot more NT than OS/2 these days in order to
move iron.

>Yes.   At least adopting a more aggressive understanding of the benefits of
>anti-trust law to consumers would explain why MS is in so much trouble and
why their
>defense has not worked.

I confess that I am skeptical of the benefits of anti-trust laws to
consumers.  (BTW, do not infer that I think government is incapable of
ever passing laws or taking actions that help consumers.  Here,
however, I take a wait and see approach.)

I am also skeptical about the application of anti-trust laws.  To what
extent are they applied to successful companies at the urging of their
less successful competitors?  (Notice the question mark.)

--
Bill Pridgen
--
[e-mail]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                 08-Nov-99 20:53:17
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Warp users running Be?

From: William Pridgen <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 06:44:46 GMT, [e-mail] (Jeff
Glatt) wrote:

>What happened to Metrowerks? (I haven't really followed Be's
>developments for awhile. Too busy. Been meaning to get back to the web
>page and take a closer look at it).

MWCC is still used by Be for the Power PC, but not for Be on Intel.

>Is GCC now the preferred development tool for Be apps?

Yes.

> And how does
>the IDE compare to something like MS' Visual Studio?

I'm not qualified to answer that one.  It seems to be roughly
comparable, at least.  They included it in order to encourage people
to develop apps for Be, so I assume it must be fairly decent.

> Does it really
>isolate a programmer from having to deal with MAKE files and command
>line options? (GCC is traditionally a very command line driven tool).

Yes.

>By the way, where did you get your copy and how much did it cost you?

BeDepot.  I got it bundled with the BeOS Bible for $69, but I see now
that Insight has the same bundle for $49.  Ouch!

--
Bill Pridgen
--
[e-mail]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Giganews.Com - Premium News Outsourcing (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          09-Nov-99 03:19:26
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Mirage Media
>Can you please tell me why most of OS/2's development is now done in
>Europe and not the US?

European developers tend to lag behind the USA. They have neither the
resources nor the support infrastructure to keep up with the USA in
the computer business. (The internet has helped to bring about a
little more equality even though USA citizens comprise the majority of
internet users as well, but still, the USA has the most software
developers and most software development. In terms of software
development, Europe is akin to a "third world power" compared to the
USA). We're the leaders in computer technology. Certainly, we drive
the technology marketplace, and this is where the real action is.
Europeans tend to acquire the USA's castoffs for a cheap price after
the American consumer has moved onto to the newer stuff. For example,
long after USA developers had abandoned the C64 and moved onto the
Amiga and ST and Windows 3.1, the Europeans were still playing with
their C64's. By the time that the Europeans finally started to get
their hands on the Amiga and Atari ST (which also outsold OS/2 and the
Mac back then in Europe), we had already moved on to OS/2 and Windows.
By the time the Europeans have finally retired those aging Amigas and
Atari STs (which in some parts of Europe, would still be considered
"luxury items") and gotten around to OS/2, we've moved onto Win32. By
the time that European consumers and developers finally get around to
Win32, we'll be onto something else even newer. That's the way that it
is. Europe is *not* a leader in the computer business.

A big factor in this is that Europeans tend to not spend nearly as
much on technology as Americans. They buy less goods, and what they do
buy tends to be "the cheap stuff" by USA standards. You can't be a
leader in technology with that sort of market. And European
development reflects its own market.

Furthermore, the European market is rife with software piracy and
violations of US copyrighted software. Coupled with the expense and
hassles of selling to Europe (for example, a US company can't even
sell a product in France unless it provides a user's manual in
French), most USA developers don't expend much effort at all in
marketing/selling to Europe. The result is a very "loose",
disorganized, chaotic market where there aren't many standards, nor
all that much happening, and which is largely a "dumping ground" of
technology that Americans no longer want, but which can be sold to
Europeans for at least a little bit of money (in lieu of being
scrapped altogether).

I'm not saying that European development is worthless, but it's
largely irrelevant to the computer market outside of Europe, and
therefore is irrelevant to the dynamics of the USA market. Attempting
to draw some sort of conclusions about the USA market, from the
European market, is a very dubious proposition at best

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         09-Nov-99 03:27:16
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

>>> -- snip --

>>>>> Answer my question in an honest and forthright manner, and you
>>>>> will have the answer to your question.

>>>> I've already done that several times, Curtis.  Having more reading
>>>> comprehension problems?

>>> "Answering" a question with another (leading) question hardly
>>> qualifies as "honest and forthright."

>> On what basis do you make that claim?

> On the basis that it happens to be true.

On what basis do you claim that it happens to be true, Curtis?

>> The reasoning I used is both honest and forthright.

> Reading comprehension problems, Dave?

Obviously not, Curtis.

> I wasn't asking for the "honest and forthright reasoning"

My answer was based on that reasoning, Curtis.

> you used to not answer my question, but to ask another question
> instead.

That question leads you right down the path of honest and
forthright reasoning on my part, Curtis.

> On the contrary, I asked for an honest and forthright answer to *my*
> question.

And you got one, Curtis.

>> If you don't like such answers,

> Not sure how to answer this one.

I'm not asking for an answer, Curtis.

> On the one hand, "such" answers could refer to "answering" a question
> with another question, which is no "answer" at all.

Incorrect, Curtis.

> On the other hand, "such" answers could be referring to "honest and
> forthright" answers, which I have yet to witness from Dave.

Liar.

>> I can always use your approach, which involves deleting relevant text
>> and inserting irrelevant text.

> On what basis do you claim that to be "my approach," Dave?

On the basis of your deletion of the Timbol quotation whose second and
second last lines I referred to in what was "the first quotation above".

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         09-Nov-99 03:21:11
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>> It's apparent opacity to you is merely a side effect of your own
>>> reading comprehension problems.

>> What alleged reading comprehension problems, Lucien?

> Your repeated requests for clarification of the term "multi-level"
> indicate a reading comprehension problem,

Incorrect; rather it indicates the lack of any explanation from you
regarding your meaning.

> given that the meaning I used is clear.

Obviously not, Lucien, otherwise it wouldn't have been necessary to
ask for an explanation of your meaning.

>> That's rather ironic, coming from someone who doesn't even realize
>> the irrelevance of his own thesis and who can't comprehend the
>> relevance of two simple tests.

> Your "tests" demonstrate nothing relevant.

On the contrary, my tests demonstrate that your argument is wrong.
That's quite relevant.

> They are merely nonsense laden with invective,

Where is the alleged invective in those two simple tests, Lucien?
Where is the alleged nonsense in those two simple tests, Lucien?
Did you even bother to read them before you deleted them?

> intended only to divert attention from the topic at hand.

Illogical, given that they deal directly with the topic at hand.

>>> Thus, an independent comparison can be done.

>> You're erroneously presupposing that your own meaning is clear.

> Wrong. My meaning is clear.

Obviously not, Lucien, otherwise it wouldn't have been necessary to
ask for an explanation of your meaning.

>> I've told you that it is not clear to me,

> That it is not clear to you is obvious, but that is merely a side
> effect of your reading comprehension problem.

Illogical, given that you haven't provided any explanation of your
meaning to comprehend, Lucien.

> The opacity is apparent only to you

On what basis do you speak for everyone else, Lucien?

> and has nothing to do with the clarity of my remark.

On the contrary, it has everything to do with the lack of any
explanation for the meaning of your remark.

>> but rather than clarifying your
>> meaning,

> My meaning is already clear.

Obviously not, Lucien, otherwise it wouldn't have been necessary to
ask for an explanation of your meaning.

>> you simply point me to someone else's meaning and claim that it's
>> the same as yours, thus no independent comparison of meanings can
>> be done by me.

> Wrong.

Illogical; how can a comparison be made of two things when only one
of the two is avaiable?

> My meaning is clear

Obviously not, Lucien, otherwise it wouldn't have been necessary to
ask for an explanation of your meaning.

> and so is that of the authors in the references I cited in the
> "costly mistakes" thread.

Irrelevant, given that I haven't called the meaning of the authors
"unclear".

> Thus, an independent comparison of meanings can be done.

Illogical; how can a comparison be made of two things when only one
of the two is avaiable?

>>>> The underlying ambiguity of what, Lucien?

>>> The underlying ambiguity WRT quantification; can't you read?

>> I can't read what isn't there, Lucien.

> That you cannot comprehend the statements is obvious.

I can't comprehend explanatory statements that haven't been made, Lucien.

>> Your statement mentioned nothing about quantification.

> Wrong. Our statements directly concern themselves with quantification.

I wasn't referring to "our statements", Lucien.  I was referring to the
statement of yours that used to precede "The underlying ambiguity of
what, Lucien?", which you've conveniently deleted from your follow-up
the hide the fact that your statement mentioned nothing about
quantification

> Let's go over them again:

Unnecessary, Lucien.  What's necessary is for you to go over the two
simple tests that prove you wrong.  I've restored them below for your
convenience.

> Here is your statement regarding the JDK sentence (emphasis mine):
>
> "The word 'implements' does allow for [[[either 'some' or
> 'all']]] functionality, [[[in the absence of any other
> information.]]]"

That statement does not concern the JDK sentence, Lucien, as I've
told you several times now, because the JDK sentence involves the
presence of other informaiton.  Obviously you're the one suffering
from reading comprehension problems.

> Note the description of the ambiguity WRT quantification.

Note how the statement does not concern the JDK sentence, Lucien,
contrary to your claim, which is the evidence that you are suffering
from reading comprehension problems.  How ironic.

> Here is my thesis statement again (emphasis mine):
>
> The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
> ambiguous WRT to quantification, [[[in the absence of peri-verbal
> information.]]]

Your thesis statement is irrelevant, Lucien, given that the JDK
sentence involves the presence of what you like to call "peri-verbal
information".

> Note the description of the ambiguity WRT quantification.

Note the irrelevance of your thesis to the present situation.

Also note the absence of any nonsense or invective in either of
the two simple tests restored here:

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

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: [e-mail]                          09-Nov-99 03:41:10
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Marty
>Dave has proven he is incapable of using logic, proof, and common
>sense.

Yep. Most people have already figured this one out. The only people
who don't yet realize what a dummy Tholen is are a handful of truly
naive, clueless zealots who are "emotionally blocked" over a pet
product that Tholen "defends". And we know who those people are

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            08-Nov-99 22:55:28
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Warp users running Be?

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:57:16 -0500, David H. McCoy
><[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>How exactly did you determine that it is rock solid? Booting up and
launching a
>>couple of programs hardly seems like an extensive test.
>
>Where did I say that's all I did?
>
>--
>Bill Pridgen
>--
>[e-mail]
>

Where did I say that was all that you did? Since you didn't provide details, I

decided to query you for some?

Got any answers?

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             09-Nov-99 03:39:01
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: IBM wants Windows 2000

From: [e-mail]

In <7vkq8r$[e-mail]>, "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>
writes:
>And I thought that applications were important.  Even you must admit that
|you are limited to only certain applications and are stuck with them because
|nobody else makes OS/2 software in that category.
|
|How many OS/2 office suites are native OS/2 API and not that joke of an API
|"Open32"?
|
Seriously the native OS/2 API is Java. You are in bad need of education. Start
with http://www.seattletimes.com/microsoft/ruling.html. If you can not read
all
100 pages scan for OS/2 and Java.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm
is your next assignment

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         09-Nov-99 03:36:03
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

>>> -- snip --

>>>> Your perceptions are irrelevant, Curtis.  Reality is relevant.

>>> Such as the reality that you jumped to an erroneous conclusion when
>>> you stated that one had to run OS/2 in order to extract the contents
>>> of JAVAINUF.EXE, for example?

>> 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?

> Like I have said elsewhere:
>
> 1) Run the self-extraction module on a system
>    that ***DOES*** support OS/2 applications.

Thus you agree with the logic of my conclusion.

> 2) Believe someone who says that they ***CAN***
>    extract the contents of the archive ***WITHOUT***
>    running OS/2.

Who is this "someone", Curtis?  Mike Timbol?  He is a known liar.
Not much of a choice.

> You didn't select either one of these choices, Dave,

On what basis do you make that claim, Curtis?

> but tries to argue against both of them.

Where have I done that, Curtis?

> That was inept.

On the contrary, your claim that I've tried to argue against both of
them is "inept".

>>> Or the reality that you ignore presented evidence, yet argue against
>>> it anyway?

>> How ironic, coming from the person who dishonestly ignored (and
>> deleted) text (namely Timbol's reference to classes.zip) and
>> introduced older text to make it look like a different file was being
>> referred to.

> Hilarious!

Yes, your tactic was rather hilarious, Curtis.

> All I did was restore the full context of the discussion,

On the contrary, you removed my reference to "first quotation above"
and buried the relevant text much lower in the article.

> but then I have noted your problems with context in the past.

What alleged problems with context, Curtis?

> It's no wonder that you would accuse me of "dishonesty" when all I
> did was to restore context.

On the contrary, you removed my reference to "first quotation above"
and buried the relevant text much lower in the article.

> "Make it look like," Dave?

Having more reading comprehension problems, Curtis?

> You are really stretching.

Not at all, Curtis.

> Why not ask Mike Timbol which file he was referring to when he
> said, "It proves I can read the file?"

Unnecessary, given that we're dealing with the following quotation,
Curtis, which doesn't include that question:

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.

>>> Hey, that's really scientific, Dave . . .

>> You're presupposing that I've ignored presented evidence and argued
>> against it anyway.  Where's your evidence for that having happened,
>> Curtis?

> In the "Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!" thread,
> Dave

Care to be more specific, Curtis?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         09-Nov-99 03:47:28
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

>-- snip --

>>>>> Nobody, including myself, is claiming that I am "civil," Dave.

>>>> You are claiming to not having made personal attacks against me.

>>> Which is not the same as claiming that I am civil.

>> Oh really?  Are you saying that you can make the sort of personal
>> attacks I reproduced and still call them "civil"?

> See the quad-chevroned statement I made above, Dave?

Obviously, Curtis.

> Do try to keep up,

How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't answered my question:

DT] Are you saying that you can make the sort of personal attacks
DT] I reproduced and still call them "civil"?

> or admit that you have reading comprehension problems.

Illogical, given that you're the one not keeping up, Curtis.

> -- snip --

>>> I see that you aren't above invective,

>> How ironic.  I note that you are impolite and you call it "invective".
>> Meanwhile, you call me "self-deluded" and insist that it isn't
>> "invective".

> I do note your use of leading language:
>
> "I *NOTE* that you are impolite . . ."

Nothing "leading" about it, Curtis.  I've reproduced the evidence,
per your request.

> "Meanwhile, you *CALL* me 'self-deluded' . . ."

Are you denying your use of that, Curtis?

> No, I state my ***BELIEF*** that you are self-deluded,

Your beliefs are irrelevant, Curtis, and won't change the fact that
you used those words, whether you consider them "invective" or not.

> based on my observation that you ***APPEAR*** to be self-deluded,

What appears to you is irrelevant, Curtis, and won't change the fact
that you used those words, whether you consider them "invective" or not.

> an examples of which is your deliberate ignorance of presented evidence
> which disproves your claim (the "self-" part)

What alleged "ignorance of presented evidence", Curtis?

> while steadfastly neglecting to admit the error of said claim (the
> "deluded" part).

What alleged "neglect to admit the error of said claim", Curtis?

> Also, I am not the one who repeatedly points out each and every
> instance of alleged "invective" on the part of each and every one
> of my opponents, Dave.

How could you, given that you don't recognize invective when you see
it?  You seem to think that anything you perceive as the "truth" can't
possibly be invective.

> You are the one who does that,

Unlike you, I recognize invective, especially when it's used in place
of a logical argument.

> the implication of which is that you consider yourself above using
> invective.

Yet another person who doesn't understand the difference between
"implication" and "inference".  Just because you inferred something
doesn't mean I implied it, Curtis.

> I have simply shown you not to be above using invective.

What alleged "invective", Curtis?  According to your usage of the
word, I've not used any "invective".

>> Do make up your mind, Curtis.

> That is abusive language.

No more abusive than your alleged "non-invective", Curtis.  Do make
up your mind.

> Typical invective, the usual strategy of someone who lacks a logical
> argument.

No more insulting than your alleged "non-invective", Curtis.  Do make
up your mind.

>>> which is unfortunate, considering your sanctimonious obsession over
>>> the alleged invective of others.

>> Consider your own hypocrisy, Curtis.

> What alleged "hypocrisy," Dave?

The hypocrisy of using invective, denying it, and then calling something
"invective" that you had recently declared as not being invective.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               08-Nov-99 23:13:02
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

The following are self-substantiating:

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> What alleged "ignorance of presented evidence", Curtis?
> What alleged "neglect to admit the error of said claim", Curtis?
> What alleged "invective", Curtis?  [...] Do make up your mind.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         09-Nov-99 04:05:17
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

>-- snip --

>>> For the record, what Dave snipped is a ***SUPERSET*** of what he
>>> "restored."

>> For the record, what Curtis snipped contains the crucial lines I was
>> referring to when I wrote "second and second last lines of the first
>> quotation above".

> Which I subsequently included in my expanded reproduction of the
> context.

"Buried" is more like it, and in a location that was no longer referred
to by "the first quotation above".

> Granted, these lines were no longer the "second and last lines
> of the quotation above,"

Thereby destroying the link and the "context" of my remark.

> but the text in question was indeed present.

Not where it originally was, Curtis.

>> By removing them, there was no "first quotation above" that new
>> readers could have referred to.

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

Fine, Curtis; if you want to play that game, I'll simply delete
everything prior to the most recent text and let you go back to
previous posts.

> Also, this accusation dosn't address the fact that I did include the
> lines in question when I restored the expanded context.

"Buried" is more like it, and in a location that was no longer referred
to by "the first quotation above", thereby destroying the link and the
"context" of my remark.

>> Rather, you buried them in what you call a "superset", and new readers
>> would not have been able to follow my reference to the "second and
>> second last lines of the first quotation above".

> Were they so inclinded, they could have consulted earlier posts, or
> Deja News, where the full context of the exchange is intact.

Fine, Curtis; if you want to play that game, I'll simply delete
everything prior to the most recent text and let you go back to
previous posts.

>>> Of course, anyone following this thread (and you have my sympathy
>>> if you are) already knows this.

>> Anyone following this thread already knows that the list of classes
>> that Timbol used to try and prove that Java 2 security classes aren't
>> in the JDK is contained in the file classes.zip, Curtis.  Anyone
>> following this thread already knows that the security enhancements
>> were in a separate file, namely secma.zip, thus Timbol's "evidence"
>> was a diversion.

> 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?

> -- snip --

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               08-Nov-99 23:26:19
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Curtis Bass writes:
> >
> > Why not ask Mike Timbol which file he was referring to when he
> > said, "It proves I can read the file?"
>
> Unnecessary, given that we're dealing with the following quotation,
> Curtis, which doesn't include that question:
>
> 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.

And now to show how utterly wrong Dave is again, let's examine classes.zip
ourselves, shall we?

Archive:  classes.zip
 Length  Method   Size  Ratio   Date    Time   CRC-32     Name
 ------  ------   ----  -----   ----    ----   ------     ----
   6020  Stored    6020   0%  07-27-99  20:10  897b9235
java/lang/Thread.class
   1452  Stored    1452   0%  07-27-99  20:10  a78006fc
java/lang/Object.class
   4634  Stored    4634   0%  07-27-99  20:10  0ef6198c
java/lang/Class.class
  10137  Stored   10137   0%  07-27-99  20:10  c8e2c030
java/lang/String.class
    184  Stored     184   0%  07-27-99  20:10  2eb423fa
java/io/Serializable.class
    251  Stored     251   0%  07-27-99  20:10  b6b1717c
java/lang/ThreadDeath.class
    329  Stored     329   0%  07-27-99  20:10  85edb7e8
java/lang/Error.class
   1573  Stored    1573   0%  07-27-99  20:10  50109d4c
java/lang/Throwable.class
    337  Stored     337   0%  07-27-99  20:10  30a712a6
java/lang/Exception.class
    351  Stored     351   0%  07-27-99  20:10  b4684fe0
java/lang/RuntimeException.class
    180  Stored     180   0%  07-27-99  20:10  ed926e01
java/lang/Cloneable.class

That's the first few lines.  The rest of the files within the zip follow a
similar pattern.  Note if you will the compression method for these files,
namely "STORED".  This means the files have a compression ratio of 0%,
resulting in the overall classes.zip file being uncompressed but combined (a
la
"tar").  How then could Mike Timbol have been referring to the contents of
classes.zip when he said it was compressed at 57%?

Classes.Zip only appears to be compressed when examining the contents of
JAVAINUF.EXE.  Thus proving that Mike Timbol, in quoting the statistics above,
was proving that he could read JAVAINUF.EXE, just as Curtis claimed, and the
rest of Tholen's hollow argument comes tumbling down again.

Man, it must be really embarassing to be as wrong as Tholen, as often as he
is.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               08-Nov-99 23:30:08
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> He meant what he wrote, Curtis.  Why ignore the written evidence?

Indeed.  But I am certain that we will see the arch-hypocrite ignore the
written evidence that I just presented proving him dead wrong as usual.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               08-Nov-99 23:37:07
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> > That you cannot comprehend the statements is obvious.
>
> I can't comprehend explanatory statements that haven't been made, Lucien.

Dave can't even comprehend his own words, as evidenced below:

> Also note the absence of any nonsense or invective in either of
> the two simple tests restored here:
> [...]
> Yet more evidence that you're playing your own "infantile game".
> Or are you really that idiotic?

How embarassingly incorrect and hypocritical.  Par for the course for Dave.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         09-Nov-99 04:24:28
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (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 text.

Curtis Bass writes:

> Regardless of whose file it was based on, the claim was erroneous.

How does that make your copy of the file relevant, Curtis?

> My copy proves the error of the claim.

My claim wasn't based on your copy of the file, Curtis, thus your copy
of the file is indeed irrelevant to my claim.

> "Irrelevant" to your erroneous claim, perhaps, but not to the disproof
> thereof.

So, you admit that your copy of the file is irrelevant.

> "Logical" perhaps, but erroneous, nonetheless. I never said that your
> claim was "illogical," Dave.

You did call me "inept", Curtis, but you've yet to identify anything
I did that is "inept".

> Only that it was wrong.

Incorrect, Curtis; you called it "inept".

> Which it is.

What is allegedly "inept" about it, Curtis?

> Which is to say, what you called unnecessary was the need to run the
> JAVAINUF.EXE self-extraction . . .

So why did you infer otherwise, Curtis?

> So you naturally jumped to the erroneous comclusion that that was the
> *ONLY* way to make the extraction.

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?

> Yes, Dave, that is quite "logical."  (ROTFLMAO!)

To quote yourself from a couple dozen lines above:

CB] "Logical" perhaps, but erroneous, nonetheless. I never said that your
CB] claim was "illogical," Dave.

Do make up your mind, Curtis.

> If the student insists that his measurements are valid, and he
> insists that those of three other students' aren't (because they are
> quite different from his),

I see you still can't keep the chronology straight, Curtis.  There
weren't three other students involved at the time.  There was only
one other student involved, and it happens to be one who has a history
of lying in lab reports.

> then the student in question is either inept or arrogant, perhaps both.

Your conclusion is what is "inept", Curtis, given how you've once again
ignored the proper chronology.

> In any case, he is wrong.

He is not "inept", as you claimed, Curtis.

> I see you are trying to lead me down your own path again.

On the contrary, I'm simply getting you to repeat the path you
already traveled once, Curtis.

> Unfortunately, your lab assignment example is an inappropriate anaolgy,
> because, in most such cases, the student is expected to work alone, or
> in a predetemined team, which precludes the sharing of information that
> might indicate that the student in question is indeed getting incorrect
> results.

Nothing inappropriate about it, Curtis, given that information was
shared with the instructor.  You are obviously having difficulty
seeing yourself in the role of the instructor.  Too embarassed to
claim that someone was "inept" when there's no logical basis for the
accusation, Curtis?

> If information sharing was allowed during the lab assignment,

Talk about inappropriate analogies!  What you're calling "inept" is the
equivalent of the lab report.  At the time the report was written, no
information was available to indicate that the voltmeter was
malfunctioning, Curtis.  Do try to keep the chronology straight.  It
wouldn't make you look so "inept", to use your word.

> and the student in question deliberately ignored evidence that his fellow
> students tried to provide him,

Still can't keep the chronology straight, eh Curtis?  See above.

> evidence which suggested that the student in question was getting
> incorrect results,

Still can't keep the chronology straight, eh Curtis?  See above.

> and the student in question ended up with a failing grade, then you
> tell me, was the student inept? Or arrogant? Or both?

The instructor, namely you, is the one who is "inept", or "arrogant",
or both, Curtis, because you can't keep the chronology straight.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             09-Nov-99 04:43:12
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)
writes:
>>Mirage Media
>>Can you please tell me why most of OS/2's development is now done in
>>Europe and not the US?
>
>European developers tend to lag behind the USA. They have neither the
>resources nor the support infrastructure to keep up with the USA in
>the computer business. (The internet has helped to bring about a
>little more equality even though USA citizens comprise the majority of
>internet users as well, but still, the USA has the most software
>developers and most software development. In terms of software
>development, Europe is akin to a "third world power" compared to the
>USA). We're the leaders in computer technology. Certainly, we drive
>the technology marketplace, and this is where the real action is.
>Europeans tend to acquire the USA's castoffs for a cheap price after
>the American consumer has moved onto to the newer stuff. For example,
>long after USA developers had abandoned the C64 and moved onto the
>Amiga and ST and Windows 3.1, the Europeans were still playing with
>their C64's. By the time that the Europeans finally started to get
>their hands on the Amiga and Atari ST (which also outsold OS/2 and the
>Mac back then in Europe), we had already moved on to OS/2 and Windows.
>By the time the Europeans have finally retired those aging Amigas and
>Atari STs (which in some parts of Europe, would still be considered
>"luxury items") and gotten around to OS/2, we've moved onto Win32. By
>the time that European consumers and developers finally get around to
>Win32, we'll be onto something else even newer. That's the way that it
>is. Europe is *not* a leader in the computer business.
>
>A big factor in this is that Europeans tend to not spend nearly as
>much on technology as Americans. They buy less goods, and what they do
>buy tends to be "the cheap stuff" by USA standards. You can't be a
>leader in technology with that sort of market. And European
>development reflects its own market.
>
>Furthermore, the European market is rife with software piracy and
>violations of US copyrighted software. Coupled with the expense and
>hassles of selling to Europe (for example, a US company can't even
>sell a product in France unless it provides a user's manual in
>French), most USA developers don't expend much effort at all in
>marketing/selling to Europe. The result is a very "loose",
>disorganized, chaotic market where there aren't many standards, nor
>all that much happening, and which is largely a "dumping ground" of
>technology that Americans no longer want, but which can be sold to
>Europeans for at least a little bit of money (in lieu of being
>scrapped altogether).
>
>I'm not saying that European development is worthless, but it's
>largely irrelevant to the computer market outside of Europe, and
>therefore is irrelevant to the dynamics of the USA market. Attempting
>to draw some sort of conclusions about the USA market, from the
>European market, is a very dubious proposition at best

And yet the European market was the first to find that Microsoft
acted illegally. Anyone who ignores Europe deserves to be surprised.

http://www.eskimo.com/~mighetto/client.htm
what is France up to with OS/2?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             09-Nov-99 04:50:00
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: OS/2 BMP's 4 e-commerce conference....

From: [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] writes:
>Hi
>
>I have a conference tomorow about e-commerce and will use my OS/2 v4
>System and Freelance/2 .  Need some COOL OS/2 BMP's ...to add to my
>screen saver.
>Any refernce will be appreciated...Just want to show biz people what
>is OS/2 v4 about...
>
>Sure, the system is running pretty good here with FP#12.... any reco
>to avoid any crash with NS4.61?
>
>Thanks
>
>Prof. Edfel J. Rivera

I just checked my copy of CorelDraw 9. If you do a custom install it will
support OS/2 BMP. Looks like you can convert just about anything to
OS/2 BMP using CorelDraw 9. But you are probably looking for the
old marketing graphics that IBM put out. Don't know about that.

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: [e-mail]                             09-Nov-99 05:01:06
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: BeOS compared to Windows...

From: "Stephen S. Edwards II" <[e-mail]>

Nate <[e-mail]> writes:

: On 7 Nov 1999 23:24:28 GMT, "Stephen S. Edwards II"
: <[e-mail]> wrote:

: >: Not everyone wants to write software.
: >
: >Not everyone wants to have to drive to the grocery store, either.
: >However, if your refrigerator is empty, and all you do is sit there an
: >complain about how hungry you are, then you have only yourself to blame
: >for starving.

: I send the fiance.  If she wasn't here I'd call for chinese.

*giggle*  ITYM fiancee'.  :-)


--
--
.-----.
|[_] :| Stephen S. Edwards II | http://www.primenet.com/~rakmount
| =  :| "Humans have the potential to become irrational... perhaps
|     |  you should attempt to access that part of your psyche."
|_..._|                    -- Lieutenant Commander Data

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Anamorphic 3-D Graphics Inc. (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         09-Nov-99 05:05:16
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Brian Homan <[e-mail]>

On 11/8/99, 8:35:30 AM, "Peter Nelson" <[e-mail]> wrote
Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!:

<snip>

> Linux is a good example of this problem.   They get
> to say they're "technically better" because they have
> a narrow definition of better. I'm a sw engineer with
> 20 years of experience on Unix and Windows and I recently
> spent a week attempting to install Caldera's Open Linux 2.3
> simply follwoing the instructions in their product's
> documentation, and it still isn't installed.   (if I went
> outside the box (literally) and downloaded 3rd party install
> tools it would be done by now but my goal was to evaluate
> Caldera's install).   Yet these were TECHNICAL issues
> (Calder'a version of PartitionMagic not loading, for instance).

Then you should have evaluated Linux. Instead, what you did was
evaluate a DOS/Win application and it's ability/inability to
deal with your Windows NT NTFS partition.

> But whether something is "better" is irrelevant since "better"
> is up to the market to decide.

That's the way it's supposed to work.  Unfortunately, when you
have a monopoly presence, it sometimes doesn't.

> It's not fair to punish microsoft because its competitors are
> incompetent.

Who is trying to do that?


Brian




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

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

From: [e-mail]                              08-Nov-99 21:02:26
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Dennis Peterson <[e-mail]>

"David T. Johnson" wrote:
>
> Esther Schindler wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:55:55, Mirage Media <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > | Now we know why MGI released a demo of their photo software on the Warp
> > | applications sampler disk and never followed through with an actual
> > | working product. Bastards.
> >
> > No, it was because IBM screwed MGI on the contract. You can lay that
> > one at the feet of Wally Casey.
> >
>
> Esther, you cling to this "IBM was stupid and rotten" theory and
> completely ignore the possibility that IBM was pressured by Microsoft to
> back away from OS/2 or else.  Not only is this a possibility, it is now
> a FINDING OF FACT in a federal court case by a federal judge.

I'm a big OS/2 advocate, but this is a reach. There is no evidence to
support the notion that this project was the direct victim of MS. Let's
leave the witch hunts for the screwballs.

> You apparently completely missed several days of courtroom testimony by IBM
> executives last summer.  You should find a transcript and read it.
>
> Please reread Judge Jackson's Finding of Fact:
>
> Judge Jackson's Second Finding Of Fact: 'It is Microsoft's corporate
> practice to pressure other firms to halt software development that
> either shows the potential to weaken the applications barrier to entry
> or competes directly with Microsoft's most cherished sofware products.'
>
> Is there some reason why you don't think that IBM was one of these
> "other firms?"

Is there any evidence to suggest they were, at least within the scope of
this thread?

>  IBM was not on a crusade to fight injustice.  They were
> businessmen.  Microsoft had them in a headlock and there was nothing for
> them to do but capitulate.  And they did.  Just like most other firms.
> Just like those companies who were forced to sell out to Standard Oil 90
> years ago.  Netscape had no choice but to fight to the end because
> Microsoft was after their entire business, not just a part of it.  But
> Netscape still lost in the end.

Netscape sold for billions more than they were worth - not a bad deal in
my book, but still this has nothing to do with the original suggestion
you've put forward about MGI.

I'm not defending MS - I and my household remain a 100% MS-free zone,
but you're going a bit overboard. Stick to the facts and leave the
stargazing to the professionals and the whackos.

--
dp -- BS#3, LF#27, AH#95
Jump to my auctions at:
http://eddiekieger.com/~dkp/cgi-bin/ek3auction.cgi?justdisp&Dp

Support Eddie Kieger III at http://eddiekieger.com
Got a home page? Please add a link to Eddie's site!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: I'm not organized at all (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                09-Nov-99 05:14:19
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: The Words of the Judge

From: [e-mail] (Jack Troughton)

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 01:56:36, William Pridgen <[e-mail]>
wrote:

ΩOn Mon, 08 Nov 1999 06:18:29 GMT, [e-mail] (Jeff
ΩGlatt) wrote:
█
Ω>Oh, there were a lot more things that went wrong than that.
█
Ω[....]
█
ΩYes, I am acquainted with these issues.  Taken together, all this
Ωmakes one wonder how OS/2 did as well as it did, say, up to the
Ωrelease of Warp 4.  It almost seems to have been doomed from the
Ωstart.  I'd like it to have turned out differently, but looking back,
Ωit's hard to see how it could have.

It's not all that hard to figure out, really.  No matter how you slice
it, warp has some very kickass tech in it.  If only it was better for
games... but scitech might yet make it so.  Warp has done as well as
it has because it is a very good, unique OS.  The other reason is
because IBM still uses it heavily in the financial industry.  There's
a lot of money there for IBM.  Basically, that's why it didn't really
die back in 96.  In fact, warp could become well positioned again for
the desktop fairly soon.  If scitech's stuff really comes through in
the next year or so (3d, etc.) then the base capabilities for making a
good games box with warp will be in the marketplace.

Couple that with good y2k readiness, freely available office suites,
and a good stable system including the power and beauty of the wps,
and I think it could come again to a respectable market position in
3-5 years.

This, of course, is wholly dependent on their being a thinking person
with some power in IBM.  That, sadly, seems to be a remote possibility
at best.

I'm going to keep using it, though.  My box does everything I need it
to, and it's a lot of fun to use.  I don't have any real reason to
switch yet.

Hehehe, I've turned my brother to the warp side.  He finally broke
down and bought a computer.  It came with Windows 98.  He played with
it for a couple of months, and then asked me to install warp for him.
He bought a license about three weeks later.  Of course, I've saved
him an enormous amount of learning time; but he considers it a real
pleasure to use compared to windows.  So does my mom.

The conceptual consistency of the interface is truly remarkable.  Once
you understand it, everything becomes really easy to use and
configure, and it's also really easy to keep track of and organize
your data.  Shadows are a seriously excellent concept, for example.

Anyway, things are definitely going to change in this industry, and
that's a good thing, IMHO.  Only time will tell what's actually going
to happen, but whatever it is, it's sure to be interesting.

Ease!

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         09-Nov-99 05:32:24
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (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:

> Why would I ignore my own answer, Dave?

Good question.  Yet that's what you're doing.

> It is you who ignores evidence.

Yet another example of your pontification.

> I have stated that one choice is to run the (JAVAINUF.EXE)
> self-extraction in OS/2.

A conclusion that you called "inept", Curtis.

> I have stated it a couple of times.

And haven't demonstrated how it is "inept" any times.  I wonder why?

> I am not so inept as to conclude that that is the only way to extract
> the contents of the self-extracting archive (JAVAINUF.EXE).

What other ways could you conclude, Curtis?  Part of the question
specified knowledge that unzip doesn't work.  Yet you haven't come
up with any other way that doesn't involve an unzipper.

> (LOL!!)  *You* are the one who asks the triple-chevroned question above,
> over and over again, rather than admit your mistake.

That's the answer to your question, Curtis!!  If don't want to see that
answer over and over again, quit asking your question over and over again.

> What same question do I allegedly "keep asking" you, Dave?

CB] Does one have to run OS/2 in order to extract the contents of
CB] JAVAINUF.EXE, Dave?

> I am not ignoring anything Dave.

On the contrary, you are ignoring the chronology.

> You have yet to substantiate why that makes a difference.

Having more reading comprehension problems, Curtis?  It makes a difference
because WinZip can't make the proper bytes magically appear.  I've
substantiated that on several occasions.

> Your claim was, "Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip
> from requires you to run OS/2."

From the exectuable, Curtis:

] This program must be run under OS/2.

> In the claim above, "the file" refers to JAVAINUF.EXE

The claim above is not the same as "the first quotation above" that you
dishonestly deleted, Curtis.

> (not classes.zip, as you would have us believe).

Where would I have you believe that, Curtis?  Where I claimed that
Timbol was referring to classes.zip was in the following:

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.

Clearly he is.  That's why you deleted the text.

> Your claim is wrong.

You can't even keep track of which claim corresponds to which statement,
Curtis.  Even more dishonesty on your part.

> I already know your response:

Obviously you don't, Curtis.

> As I have said before, one choice is to run the self-extraction on OS/2.
> That does ***NOT*** substantiate your erroneous claim, however, because
> it isn't the ***ONLY*** other choice.

What other choices are there, Curtis?  Part of the question already
specified knowledge that unzip doesn't work.

> It is illogical to suspect that you could run the self-extraction on
> OS/2 yet simultaneously believe that all other unzip tools would react
> the same way that InfoZip's unzip ustility reacted, because the
> self-extraction code contained in JAVAINUF.EXE is, indeed, just another
> unzip tool.

One that doesn't run in a DOS session, Curtis, contrary to Marty's
claim.

> Ergo, you could not extract the file by running the self-extraction
> in OS/2.

Illogical, given that I had already run a self-extraction in OS/2.
How many times do I have to tell you that IBM provided two runtime
environments from which to choose?

> Since you had no reason to "suspect any differences in the files", this
> is an irrelevant dodge.

I see you still can't keep the chronology straight.  At the time that
you created the .JPG, I did have a reason to "suspect any differences in
the files".

> And either way, it still proves that your statement, "Funny, the file
> you claim to have extracted classes.zip from requires you to run OS/2,"
> was 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, Curtis?

> I mean, which "copy of the file" are you discussing in that statement,
> Dave?

Still having reading comprehension problems, Curtis?  That statement
clearly includes the word "my" when referring to which copy of the
file.

> And, based on your postition that "your copy of the file" makes
> any difference, then how can you make any definitive statements about
> Mike's "copy of the file," based on your own anecdotal experience with
> ***YOUR*** "copy of the file?"

Simple:  WinZip, or any unzip tool for that matter, can't make the
proper bytes magically appear.  Of course, I've told you that several
times already, yet it obviously still hasn't sunk in, which again
points to your reading comprehension problem.

> You cannot have it both ways, Dave.

I'm not trying to, Curtis.

> By you, Dave: "On the contrary, at the time I posted the output from
> InfoZip, I had no knowledge of any problem with the file."

I see you still can't keep the chronology straight, Curtis.  You were
referring to a later time, so of what relevance is a statement that
refers to the time when I posted the output from InfoZip?

> So, at that time, the fact that Marty, Mike and I could extract the
> contents of "the file" (i.e., JAVAINUF.EXE) using WinZip was just as
> relevant as anything else presented in this thread.

What you could do at the time is irrelevant, Curtis.  What is relevant
is when you did extract the contents of the file and made that known.

> At that time, your claim that "the file you claim to have extracted
> classes.zip from requires you to run OS/2" was soundly disproven,

Incorrect, given that at the time I posted the error message from
InfoZip, neither you nor Marty had commented to the contrary.  Indeed,
it was my posting of that error message that triggered you and Marty
to post responses.

> and the evidence presented was quite relevant.

Not chronologically, Curtis.

> It wasn't until ***LATER*** when you discovered 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.

> that you tried to make it an issue, using it to try and cover up
> your ineptitude.

What alleged "ineptitude", Curtis?  I'm not the one who wrote the
download code.

> But you refuse, yes ***REFUSE*** to admit your error when you stated,
> "Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from requires
> you to run OS/2"

From the exectuable, Curtis:

] This program must be run under OS/2.

> Prove me wrong.

From the exectuable, Curtis:

] This program must be run under OS/2.

> Admit your error.

Where is the error in:

] This program must be run under OS/2.

Don't try Marty's approach of claiming that it runs in a DOS session.

> I dare you!

See above, Curtis.

> Right. You decided to try and cover your ineptitude by making the
> corruptness of your copy an issue.

I said it was incomplete, Curtis, not corrupt.  I have no evidence
to support a claim that any of the bytes are incorrect.

> Typical evasive strategy.

Typical reading comprehension problem on your part, Curtis.

> Of course, not, Dave. It was a riddle.

Balderdash, Curtis.

> I solved the riddle,

Incorrect, Curtis; you still didn't have any solution until after I posted
my response to Timbol.

> but it was a riddle, nonetheless.

Balderdash, Curtis.  You were simply "inept" when it came to understanding
what it meant.

> So the answer is "no."

Having more reading comprehension problems, Curtis?

> No surprises.

No surprise that you misunderstood my response.

> I have no such inablilty.

Incorrect, given that you keep getting the chronology wrong.

> I am just following your lead.

Incorrect, given that I am getting the chronology right.

> I guess this means that it's you who can't keep the chronology straight:

You guessed wrong again, Curtis.  (Interesting that in your posting, what
follows your colon is "-- snip --".  That is, there was no evidence to
support your claim.

> The earliest reference to the InfoZip error messages I could find was:

So what, Curtis?

> Clearly, Mike reported his ability to read the file

And as I told you, Mike is a known liar.  I know better than to trust
what he says.  That he was pointing to the wrong file (rather than
secma.zip) was further evidence of his dishonesty.

> (JAVAINUF.EXE, not classes.zip, so spare us that diversion)

Irrelevant, given that we're not dealing with:

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.

However, once you bring up any of my statements that immediately follow
the above quotation, then that quotation won't be a diversion, Curtis.

> using WinZip ***BEFORE*** you posted your error message

And as I told you, Mike is a known liar.  I know better than to trust
what he says.  That he was pointing to the wrong file (rather than
secma.zip) was further evidence of his dishonesty.

> (like I said, this is the earliest reference I could find on Deja News

So what, Curtis?

> -- feel free to search for an earlier one

I don't need one, Curtis.

> (LOL!!)), yet you just claimed that "Those reports were made *after*
> I posted the error message generated by InfoZip."

And do you know whose reports I'm referring to when I wrote "those",
Curtis?  Hint:  not Timbol's.

> So, who is the one so inept as to be unable to keep the chronology
> straight, Dave?

Obviously not me, Curtis.  You're the one who is "inept", because you
can't keep track of the discussion.

> Here is another example, also from October 29, 1999:

So what, Curtis?  Just another discussion with Timbol, a known liar.

> Feel free to find an article that supports your chronology, Dave.

They all do, Curtis.  Do you really want me to repost them all,
especially after you claimed:

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.

> (ROTFLMAO!!)

Yes, your inability to keep track of the chronology is laughable,
Curtis.

> Look at the above exhibits, Dave.

Unnecessary, Curtis, as I have clear memories of them.

> If you didn't suspect the copies of the files to be different, then
> isn't it rather inept to post the output of InfoZip's failed attempt
> to "counter" a report that WinZip could successfully handle the
> archive in question?

Not at all, given Timbol's history of lying, Curtis.  He was merely
pontificating that he could read the file, Curtis, and had not
supplied any hard evidence.

> Then perhaps you should have replied with "non sequitur."

Don't try to tell me how to reply to your irrelevancies, Curtis.
There is a difference between being irrelevant and being non sequitur.

> On the contrary.  Unless you can find a reference earlier than October
> 29, 1999.

Unnecessary, Curtis.  I've already told you several times that I didn't
consider the possibility that there was a problem with my copy of the
file until *after* somebody else claimed that they were able to read
the file with InfoZip (not WinZip).  Do you know what "somebody else"
means?  It does not mean Timbol, yet here you are, digging up irrelevant
exchanges with Timbol.

> "Undisputable" in your mind, perhaps . . .

Care to dispute the following quotation, 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.

> Snide remarks about my abilities are invective.

Yet your snide remarks about my abilities are not???  Hypocrite.

> Stating my honest belief that you are deluding yourself is not.

I see you still haven't bothered to comprehend that dictionary
definition.  "Inept".

> I am looking at "above," Dave,

Too bad you snipped so much of it, Curtis.

> and see another error on your part (i.e., the chronology).

No you don't, Curtis.  What you're seeing is your inability to
comprehend what I've written.

> Are you going to admit to this one, Dave?

Not by a long shot, Curtis.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                              08-Nov-99 22:02:03
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Dennis Peterson <[e-mail]>

Dennis Peterson wrote:

[snipped my own stuff]

> I'm not defending MS - I and my household remain a 100% MS-free zone,
> but you're going a bit overboard. Stick to the facts and leave the
> stargazing to the professionals and the whackos.
>

It is my great hope that nobody will construe this statement as a slant
against or referential to Dr. David Tholen who's work in astronomy is
above reproach. For those of you who can't resist the urge, screw you.

--
dp -- BS#3, LF#27, AH#95
Jump to my auctions at:
http://eddiekieger.com/~dkp/cgi-bin/ek3auction.cgi?justdisp&Dp

Support Eddie Kieger III at http://eddiekieger.com
Got a home page? Please add a link to Eddie's site!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: I'm not organized at all (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]               09-Nov-99 01:11:07
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: "Kim Cheung" <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 17:00:31 -0500, David T. Johnson wrote:

>IBM was not on a crusade to fight injustice.  They were
>businessmen.

You mean like fighting for their right to loose a bil a year through the PC
Company?

Let see.   If IBM refused to sign on the line with Win95, they would have
lost 80% of the PC hardware market since 95.   That means they would have
lost 80% of -4 billion - or lost -3.2 billion.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                08-Nov-99 18:23:09
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:28
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: John M Price PhD <[e-mail]>

In comp.os.os2.advocacy article <[e-mail]> David T.
Johnson <[e-mail]> wrote:
: If you are an OS/2 user and you've wondered why past OS/2 Software
: Developers have mysteriously folded their tents and ran, not walked,
: away from OS/2 (including IBM), here is a BIG reason:

: Judge Jackson's Second Finding Of Fact: 'It is Microsoft's corporate
: practice to pressure other firms to halt software development that
: either shows the potential to weaken the applications barrier to entry
: or competes directly with Microsoft's most cherished sofware products.'

Any software company that requires an internet browser to be installed so
that a C++ compiler will install is a bit weird.  But that is micro$oft,
now, isn't it.

As to OS monopoly, the best question to ask is where are the Word & Excel
programs written for OS/2, linux, BeOS, etc.?  If M$ did not think it was
a monopoly in the OS world, they'd be competing in the other OSs as well
for their application market share.  Alas, they aren't.


--
John M. Price, PhD                                     [e-mail]
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling!      |      PGP Key on request or FTP!
  Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated          Atheist# 683
                     Syndicate Section III - Number 1

"A wizard cannot do everything; a fact most magicians are reticent to
admit, let alone discuss with prospective clients.  Still, the fact
remains that there are certain objects, and people, that are, for one
reason or another, completely immune to any direct magical spell.  It
is for this group of beings that the magician learns the subtleties of
using indirect spells.  It also does no harm, in dealing with these
matters, to carry a large club near your person at all times."
                -- The Teachings of Ebenezum, Volume VIII

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: his very own desk! (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                08-Nov-99 18:25:12
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:29
Subj: Re: Poll time!!!

From: John M Price PhD <[e-mail]>

In comp.os.os2.advocacy article
<[e-mail]> John Varela
<[e-mail]> wrote:
: On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 18:49:38, "Jerry Rowe" <[e-mail]> wrote:

:> Found on /.
:>
:> CNN is running a poll on
:>          agreement with Judge Jackson on the DOJ v
:>          Microsoft prelmimary finding of fact.
:>          Results so far are: 61.91% agree with the
:>          finding of fact and 79% want action taken.
:>          You can vote at

: ZD is also running a poll

: http://www3.zdnet.com/zdnn/special/msdojendgame.html?chkpt=zdhpedittop

: At ZD only 50% agree with the decision.

Gee.  I stoped getting PC Magazine when it was obvious it was a misnomer.


--
John M. Price, PhD                                     [e-mail]
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling!      |      PGP Key on request or FTP!
  Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated          Atheist# 683
                     Syndicate Section III - Number 1

God is coming back in the person of Jesus Christ and those who are saved -
covered by the blood of the lamb - are gonna be with him for eternity 'n'
those that are not will not be. And creationism is another opportunity to
make sure that people, while they still have time, can address their
relationship to their god and be square with him for eternity.
    - Ed Jollman, (sp?) Kansas Resident, witness to the KS Board of
        Education which vetoed evolution.
        Taped on NPR, All Things Considered, 11Aug99

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: his very own desk! (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               09-Nov-99 01:37:27
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> I am deleting all but the most recent new text.

How typically hypocritical.

> Curtis Bass writes:
>
> > (LOL!!)  *You* are the one who asks the triple-chevroned question above,
> > over and over again, rather than admit your mistake.
>
> That's the answer to your question, Curtis!!  If don't want to see that
> answer over and over again, quit asking your question over and over again.

Apparently Tholen thinks that he can make a definitive statement such as an
answer to a question by posing an irrelevant, unrelated question.  Is he that
stupid, hypocritical, and utterly brain dead?  Actually, in light of that
question, I may see his point.

> Where I claimed that Timbol was referring to classes.zip was in the
> following:

And I have shown Tholen to be utterly incorrect by showing that classes.zip
was
not compressed at all, unless one views it from inside of JAVAINUF.EXE.  How
embarassing.

> 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.
>
> Clearly he is.  That's why you deleted the text.

Clearly Tholen made another erroneous statement without bothering to check his
facts.  No surprise there.

> > It is illogical to suspect that you could run the self-extraction on
> > OS/2 yet simultaneously believe that all other unzip tools would react
> > the same way that InfoZip's unzip ustility reacted, because the
> > self-extraction code contained in JAVAINUF.EXE is, indeed, just another
> > unzip tool.
>
> One that doesn't run in a DOS session, Curtis, contrary to Marty's
> claim.

Again Tholen defers to a previously lost argument to cover up and distract
readers from his mistakes in this one.  Too bad the technique is so
transparent.

> > Ergo, you could not extract the file by running the self-extraction
> > in OS/2.
>
> Illogical, given that I had already run a self-extraction in OS/2.

Note how Tholen changes gears yet again to the subject of the correctly
downloaded file.  And he has the nerve to complain about chronology and
consistency.

> How many times do I have to tell you that IBM provided two runtime
> environments from which to choose?

And Tholen chooses whichever one happens to suit his "argument" on a minute by
minute basis.  Too bad this technique is so transparent as well.

> > Since you had no reason to "suspect any differences in the files", this
> > is an irrelevant dodge.
>
> I see you still can't keep the chronology straight.  At the time that
> you created the .JPG, I did have a reason to "suspect any differences in
> the files".

And he didn't bother to verify his facts before shooting off his mouth either.

How embarassing.  If I were him, I'd try to sweep that embarassment under the
rug.  Thank goodness I'm not.

> > I mean, which "copy of the file" are you discussing in that statement,
> > Dave?
>
> Still having reading comprehension problems, Curtis?  That statement
> clearly includes the word "my" when referring to which copy of the
> file.

Which is just as ambiguous, as Tholen possessed both the runtime and the
development environment.  Too bad he just slipped up again.  Quite unfortunate
that he can't keep his own argumentative tripe in order in his own mind, let
alone in public Usenet postings.

> > And, based on your postition that "your copy of the file" makes
> > any difference, then how can you make any definitive statements about
> > Mike's "copy of the file," based on your own anecdotal experience with
> > ***YOUR*** "copy of the file?"
>
> Simple:  WinZip, or any unzip tool for that matter, can't make the
> proper bytes magically appear.

Switch gears yet again back to Dave's incomplete downloaded file.  Talk about
inconsistency...

> > You cannot have it both ways, Dave.
>
> I'm not trying to, Curtis.

An obvious lie, which unfortunately is also quite transparent.

> > By you, Dave: "On the contrary, at the time I posted the output from
> > InfoZip, I had no knowledge of any problem with the file."
>
> I see you still can't keep the chronology straight, Curtis.

How ironic.

> > At that time, your claim that "the file you claim to have extracted
> > classes.zip from requires you to run OS/2" was soundly disproven,
>
> Incorrect, given that at the time I posted the error message from
> InfoZip, neither you nor Marty had commented to the contrary.

Too bad the JPG image was already available in that time frame, soundly
disproving Tholen, as usual.

> > It wasn't until ***LATER*** when you discovered 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.

Of course Dave had no evidence to support any of his claims since he never
bothered checking up on them before shooting off his arrogant buzz-phrases.

> > that you tried to make it an issue, using it to try and cover up
> > your ineptitude.
>
> What alleged "ineptitude", Curtis?  I'm not the one who wrote the
> download code.

Funny how no one else involved in this thread had a problem downloading the
file.  Using Netscape for OS/2 or otherwise.

> > But you refuse, yes ***REFUSE*** to admit your error when you stated,
> > "Funny, the file you claim to have extracted classes.zip from requires
> > you to run OS/2"
>
> From the exectuable, Curtis:
>
> ] This program must be run under OS/2.

And Dave still doesn't see the illogic in relying on this as evidence.  How
absurd, given that in order to see that message, one has to run it in another
operating system.  But don't let that side-issue distract you from the true
error that Tholen just made, namely that the file needed to be executed at all
to extract its contents.

> > Prove me wrong.
>
> From the exectuable, Curtis:
>
> ] This program must be run under OS/2.

Too bad this is completely inappropriate "evidence".

> > Admit your error.
>
> Where is the error in:
>
> ] This program must be run under OS/2.

The error is that there is no need to execute the program to extract its
contents.

> Don't try Marty's approach of claiming that it runs in a DOS session.

Yes.  He's suffered enough embarassment misusing simple phrases like "stub",
"bound executable", and "display".  No need to torment the poor man(?).

> > Clearly, Mike reported his ability to read the file
>
> And as I told you, Mike is a known liar.  I know better than to trust
> what he says.  That he was pointing to the wrong file (rather than
> secma.zip) was further evidence of his dishonesty.

Unfortunately, the poor ignoramus Tholen doesn't realize that Mike only gave
the statistics on classes.zip as an example to show that he could read the
contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.  I won't counter-accuse Dave of lying here because
he
just seems too stupid to grasp what actually happened.  It's not his fault.

> > (like I said, this is the earliest reference I could find on Deja News
>
> So what, Curtis?
>
> > -- feel free to search for an earlier one
>
> I don't need one, Curtis.

Dave doesn't need to see solid evidence, Curtis.  You should know that he'll
just ignore it by now if it doesn't suit his argument.

> > Look at the above exhibits, Dave.
>
> Unnecessary, Curtis, as I have clear memories of them.

Just like I said..

> > If you didn't suspect the copies of the files to be different, then
> > isn't it rather inept to post the output of InfoZip's failed attempt
> > to "counter" a report that WinZip could successfully handle the
> > archive in question?
>
> Not at all, given Timbol's history of lying, Curtis.  He was merely
> pontificating that he could read the file, Curtis, and had not
> supplied any hard evidence.

I suppose the 32 bit CRC of a file contained within the archive is not "hard"
enough evidence for Tholen who hypocritically didn't even successfully extract
his own version of said archive before shooting off his mouth.

> There is a difference between being irrelevant and being non sequitur.

And Dave has mastered them both in his writings.

> I see you still haven't bothered to comprehend that dictionary
> definition.  "Inept".

Why bother when we have a living(?) breathing(?) example of the very
incarnation of "inept" right here in COOA?

> > Are you going to admit to this one, Dave?
>
> Not by a long shot, Curtis.

No surprise there.  Typical arrogance in the face of incontrovertible
evidence.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               09-Nov-99 06:43:28
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:29
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "William V. Campbell Jr." <[e-mail]>

in article [e-mail], David H. McCoy at
[e-mail] wrote on 11/8/99 5:44 PM:

> Indeed. I guess people some people just haven't grown enough to see an OS
has
> a
> tool instead of a religion.

Sshhh!  Quiet as I kneel before my Mac.

--
"Sweeping the road is as divine as sitting on the throne".
--Maitreya

Soup

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Cable of San Diego, CA (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                     09-Nov-99 08:07:26
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 03:31:29
Subj: Re: Warp users running Be?

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>


"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
>
> Agreed. But if one gets this with one's current OS, with more hardware and
> application support, what is the incentive to move?
>

Other than yourself, who said anything about moving? Personally, I use
(and try) different OSes both for the learning experience and for
business reasons. It's rather difficult to market hardware if you don't
know what OSes will run on it.

Corey
Mirage Media
Nuenen, The Netherlands

Fine Art Nudes Kyoto
http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/photos/gallery/C_SHADOW/index.html
Polaroid Transfer Art
http://www.frii.com/~uliasz/photoart/polaroid/t_gallery/corey.htm

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     09-Nov-99 09:37:23
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 05:19:24
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>


Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >Mirage Media
> >Can you please tell me why most of OS/2's development is now done in
> >Europe and not the US?
>
> European developers tend to lag behind the USA. They have neither the
> resources nor the support infrastructure to keep up with the USA in
> the computer business. (The internet has helped to bring about a
> little more equality even though USA citizens comprise the majority of
> internet users as well, but still, the USA has the most software
> developers and most software development. In terms of software
> development, Europe is akin to a "third world power" compared to the
> USA).
More doesn't mean the best....I'd take either Linus Torvalds or Alan Cox
over 1000 MS developers anyday of the week.

> We're the leaders in computer technology. Certainly, we drive
> the technology marketplace, and this is where the real action is.
> Europeans tend to acquire the USA's castoffs for a cheap price after
> the American consumer has moved onto to the newer stuff.

Bullshit. You know nothing about the European hardware market. Europeans
tend to maintain their systems and not upgrade if there's no compelling
reasons. There's a shop not far from where I live that sells American
classic cars from the 1960's: Thunderbirds, Mustangs....(sigh) makes my
mouth water. These aren't machines that were put together from spare
parts at some junk yard. They're cars that were bought brand new and
taken care of.
I'm *in* the hardware business....average systems sold in the UK,
Western Europe and Scandanavia tend to be much higher spec machines than
those in the States. Those in Southern Europe are much cheaper machines
(in price, specs and quality).

> For example,
> long after USA developers had abandoned the C64 and moved onto the
> Amiga and ST and Windows 3.1, the Europeans were still playing with
> their C64's. By the time that the Europeans finally started to get
> their hands on the Amiga and Atari ST (which also outsold OS/2 and the
> Mac back then in Europe), we had already moved on to OS/2 and Windows.
> By the time the Europeans have finally retired those aging Amigas and
> Atari STs (which in some parts of Europe, would still be considered
> "luxury items") and gotten around to OS/2, we've moved onto Win32. By
> the time that European consumers and developers finally get around to
> Win32, we'll be onto something else even newer. That's the way that it
> is. Europe is *not* a leader in the computer business.

Which is why IBM has that nice big R&D center at Hurley.

>
> A big factor in this is that Europeans tend to not spend nearly as
> much on technology as Americans. They buy less goods, and what they do
> buy tends to be "the cheap stuff" by USA standards. You can't be a
> leader in technology with that sort of market. And European
> development reflects its own market.

Do you have a wide-screen TV? Here and in Taiwan, it's getting difficult
to find a "normal" American-style TV. I guess that's another example of
the Euopeans being behind the US. Of course, they also have lives, they
aren't sitting on their fat asses, eatting Cheetoes watching Jerry
Springer.

>
> Furthermore, the European market is rife with software piracy and
> violations of US copyrighted software.

Considering the fact that the US pirated European goods up until the
1970's it's an interesting complaint. Perhaps you're too young to
remember the court fights J.R.R. Tolkien had with Ace Books over their
pirated edition of "Lord of the Rings"?

> Coupled with the expense and
> hassles of selling to Europe (for example, a US company can't even
> sell a product in France unless it provides a user's manual in
> French),

Are you serious???? Imagine that, can't sell a product in France unless
they have a user's manual in French!! Those sneaky Frogs. Guess what
Jeff, in FRANCE the people speak FRENCH! I wonder how much luck you'd
have with your computer (or) TV if the manuals were all written in the
languages of the manufacturers? How's your Chinese and Japanese? One of
my biggest problems in Taiwan was finding people who could write a
decent english language manual for motherboards.

> most USA developers don't expend much effort at all in
> marketing/selling to Europe. The result is a very "loose",
> disorganized, chaotic market where there aren't many standards, nor
> all that much happening, and which is largely a "dumping ground" of
> technology that Americans no longer want, but which can be sold to
> Europeans for at least a little bit of money (in lieu of being
> scrapped altogether).

Again you apparently know nothing squat about the market in Europe or
anyplace outside of Bumfuck, Texas.

>
> I'm not saying that European development is worthless, but it's
> largely irrelevant to the computer market outside of Europe, and
> therefore is irrelevant to the dynamics of the USA market. Attempting
> to draw some sort of conclusions about the USA market, from the
> European market, is a very dubious proposition at best

you know, your attitude is kind of like that we Americans had back in
the 60's...."We all have a TV, We watch alot of TV, We make alot of TV's
and so we control the TV market worldwide".....well, we don't make TV's
anymore and our TV exports consist of "Cops", "Jerry Springer" and
reruns of "Star Trek". Oh well, I still like Star Trek.

Have a nice day,

Corey
Mirage Media
Nuenen, The Netherlands

Fine Art Nudes Kyoto
http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/photos/gallery/C_SHADOW/index.html
Polaroid Transfer Art
http://www.frii.com/~uliasz/photoart/polaroid/t_gallery/corey.htm

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     09-Nov-99 09:48:09
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 05:19:24
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>


Esther Schindler wrote:
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:55:55, Mirage Media <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> | Now we know why MGI released a demo of their photo software on the Warp
> | applications sampler disk and never followed through with an actual
> | working product. Bastards.
>
> No, it was because IBM screwed MGI on the contract. You can lay that
> one at the feet of Wally Casey.
>
> --Esther

Thanks for the info Esther, but in Taiwan, I saw how MS dealt with
hardware manufacturers first hand. The *only* company that I know of
that still ships products with both OS/2 drivers and a big "OS/2" logo
on the box is BTC (http://www,btc.com.tw). The last cdrom drive I bought
was a BTC specifically because of their support for OS/2. The reason is
personal, BTC executives "kiss no ass".

Going back to MGI....regardless of any contracts between IBM and MGI,
what actually prevented MGI from releasing the product? It's funny,
since MS's troubles with the DOJ alot of companies formerly in bed with
MS (including MGI) have announced they were going to start releasing
applications for Be.

Corey
Mirage Media
Nuenen, The Netherlands

Fine Art Nudes Kyoto
http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/photos/gallery/C_SHADOW/index.html
Polaroid Transfer Art
http://www.frii.com/~uliasz/photoart/polaroid/t_gallery/corey.htm

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          09-Nov-99 11:23:24
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 10:58:09
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Mirage Media
>I'd take either Linus Torvalds or Alan Cox
>over 1000 MS developers anyday of the week.

Well, we probably *do* have 1000 american developers for every
European developer who is out there. That's why we're #1 for software
development, and Europe isn't. That's why the USA is where the action
is, and Europe isn't. That's why you're screwing around with OS/2 long
after the USA has moved onto something else.

I've already explained this to you.

>> We're the leaders in computer technology. Certainly, we drive
>> the technology marketplace, and this is where the real action is.
>> Europeans tend to acquire the USA's castoffs for a cheap price after
>> the American consumer has moved onto to the newer stuff.

>Bullshit.

So you presume.

>Europeans
>tend to maintain their systems and not upgrade if there's no compelling
>reasons.

Like I said, they're cheap and stick with the old, inexpensive stuff
generally.

Sure, the "richer" European countries, such as Germany, may spend a
bit more on technology, but the general populace of Europe is still
behind the USA is buying computer technology.

>There's a shop not far from where I live that sells American
>classic cars from the 1960's

A small shop that sells cars has no relevancy to the global computer
market.

>I'm *in* the hardware business....average systems sold in the UK,
>Western Europe and Scandanavia tend to be much higher spec machines than
>those in the States.

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

About the only thing "higher" in the spec is the price, because
Europeans tend to get less bang for the buck than USA consumers. We
have a lot of demand for technology over here. And we have a LOT of
supply -- a cutthroat business here -- that's how insatiable is the
USA's appetite for computer technology. Europe doesn't even compare.

Of course, one thing that Scandanavia has is exorbitant inflation
driving up the price of even the cheap, older technology that USA
firms dump over there.

>> For example,
>> long after USA developers had abandoned the C64 and moved onto the
>> Amiga and ST and Windows 3.1, the Europeans were still playing with
>> their C64's. By the time that the Europeans finally started to get
>> their hands on the Amiga and Atari ST (which also outsold OS/2 and the
>> Mac back then in Europe), we had already moved on to OS/2 and Windows.
>> By the time the Europeans have finally retired those aging Amigas and
>> Atari STs (which in some parts of Europe, would still be considered
>> "luxury items") and gotten around to OS/2, we've moved onto Win32. By
>> the time that European consumers and developers finally get around to
>> Win32, we'll be onto something else even newer. That's the way that it
>> is. Europe is *not* a leader in the computer business.

>Which is why IBM has that nice big R&D center at Hurley.

IBM has "branches" all over the world. Nevertheless, it's an American
company. That makes sense. The USA is the leader in the computer
business.

>> A big factor in this is that Europeans tend to not spend nearly as
>> much on technology as Americans. They buy less goods, and what they do
>> buy tends to be "the cheap stuff" by USA standards. You can't be a
>> leader in technology with that sort of market. And European
>> development reflects its own market.

>Do you have a wide-screen TV?

Wide screen TV's have nothing to do with the global computer market.

>Considering the fact that the US pirated European goods up until the
>1970's it's an interesting complaint. Perhaps you're too young to
>remember the court fights J.R.R. Tolkien had with Ace Books over their
>pirated edition of "Lord of the Rings"?

Lord of the Rings books have nothing whatsoever to do with the global
computer market.

>Are you serious???? Imagine that, can't sell a product in France unless
>they have a user's manual in French!! Those sneaky Frogs. Guess what
>Jeff, in FRANCE the people speak FRENCH! I wonder how much luck you'd
>have with your computer (or) TV if the manuals were all written in the
>languages of the manufacturers?

Nevertheless, I'm free to purchase any legally imported good
regardless of what language its manual is written in. That's because I
don't live in France, so I enjoy some freedoms that they don't have in
regard to computer software (not that I buy European software. In
general, I've found it to be inferior to USA offerings).

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         09-Nov-99 11:28:25
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 10:58:10
Subj: (1/2) Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451492

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Well, unfortunately Marty is back to wasting more bandwidth, having
expanded his invective and illogic into eight more articles today.
Of course, by responding, he effectively admitted that my postings
are not "baby-talk tripe", because he claimed that he would not respond
to such postings.  He's even trying that tired old "astrologer" line,
which has never had any effect on me here and only serves to make the
person uttering the line look like a fool.  He also decided to hitch
his wagon to Curtis Bass' horse regarding Timbol's reference to
classes.zip.  But what neither Marty nor Curtis seem to recall is
that Timbol was referring to classes.zip long before javainuf.exe was
brought up.  Why do you think I had to ask Timbol repeatedly which
top-level file contained classes.zip?

1> It would appear that Dave's threshold of embarassment has still
1> not been breached, as he continues to post "baby-talk tripe" (by
1> his own admission) further embarassing himself.  Today he decided
1> he would hypocritically concentrate on accusing others of "invective"
1> while attempting to hurl his own pathetically weak and stale brand
1> of insults towards others in order to avoid admitting to his many
1> mistakes.  This is a refreshing change of pace from his previous
1> schtick of ignoring (by his own admission) hard evidence presented
1> to him and erroneously claiming it is irrelevant, whilst attempting
1> to cover up his blatant ineptitude and embarassing mistakes.

"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> Tholen has time and again claimed that he addresses issues.
1> Nevertheless, he's been responding to postings that he insists are
1> part of an "infantile game" on my part, which is evidence for the
1> dishonesty of his earlier claim.  As for his own "infantile game",
1> there's more evidence in all the invective and unsubstantiated
1> claims contained in all of his postings in this thread.

"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> I can swear I've read that somewhere else before, only it had more
1> of a hypocritical angle to it as I remember.

"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> Perhaps because there was none.  How ironic coming from a person
2> (?) who repeatedly ignored factual information presented to him
2> from persons less inept than he.

"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 ironic and hypocritical, coming from a person (?) who reposts
2> the same irrelevant questions some 20 odd times in a given post.

"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> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

"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> And Dave's ineptitude was further highlighted.

"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> One can't ignore what isn't 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.

2> By anyone who mistakenly thought that Dave was forthright enough
2> to check his own "evidence" before shooting off his hypocritical
2> mouth.  Who would make such an assumption at this stage in the
2> game is beyond me.

"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> It was nothing more than an infantile guessing game.  How immature
2> to deliberately postpone revealing such a fact to play little
2> infantile games and cover up Dave's embarassment.

"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> An irrelevant one, no less.  But that won't stop Dave from shooting
2> off his hypocritical mouth and speaking about the other archive that
2> he didn't even bother to view.

"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> Right.  Dave always waits until after he makes a complete jackass
2> out of himself to change his claims.

"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> Dave had no evidence to support anything he was saying, but that
2> never stops him.  This is par for the course for our alleged
2> "scientist".

"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> Note:  Dave ineptly asks an irrelevant, yet obvious question,
2> avoiding answering the straightforward, relevant question addressed
2> to him.  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.

2> Like Dave's inability to extract the archive, or his inability to
2> download it.

"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> Only, instead of informing those with whom he was arguing about this
2> he chose to play an infantile guessing game.

"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> So Dave didn't check his facts until *after* he was proven wrong.
2> Par for the course for our astrologer.

"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 completely ironic, coming from the person who refused to view
2> relevant evidence yet persisted to argue about it.

"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> Wrong.  He correctly asserted that calling *Dave Tholen* self-deluded
2> is not "invective".

"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> There only seems to be a lack of a logical argument up 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.

2> How ironic.

"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> How absurd and ironic to respond with such a leading 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.

3> What alleged "reasoning"?

"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> Then change them to something that suits you better, the way Dave does.

"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> Incorrect, as Dave has proven he is incapable of using logic, proof,
3> and common sense.

"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> How ironic and hypocritical, given Dave's approach of cutting a
3> sentence in half and using the second half without regard to the first.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> Note the hypocritically indignant tone.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> How hypocritical to expect other to remain civil whilst Dave hurls
4> insults and non-civility toward whomever he chooses.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> And I note that Dave is a complete hypocrite as he has insulted my
4> abilities, without witnessing or experiencing them, by saying that
4> my employer had low standards for hiring me.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> What Dave fails to realize is that Curtis wasn't calling him a name,
4> but, in fact describing the behavior he witnessed.  Dave's behavior
4> itself is what insults Dave.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> How ironic, coming from the arch-hypocrite himself.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

5> The following are self-substantiating:

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

6> Indeed.  But I am certain that we will see the arch-hypocrite ignore
6> the written evidence that I just presented proving him dead wrong as
6> usual.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

7> And now to show how utterly wrong Dave is again, let's examine classes.zip
7> ourselves, shall we?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

7> That's the first few lines.  The rest of the files within the zip
7> follow a similar pattern.  Note if you will the compression method
7> for these files, namely "STORED".  This means the files have a
7> compression ratio of 0%, resulting in the overall classes.zip file
7> being uncompressed but combined (a la "tar").  How then could Mike
7> Timbol have been referring to the contents of classes.zip when he said
7> it was compressed at 57%?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

7> Classes.Zip only appears to be compressed when examining the contents
7> of JAVAINUF.EXE.  Thus proving that Mike Timbol, in quoting the
7> statistics above, was proving that he could read JAVAINUF.EXE, just
7> as Curtis claimed, and the rest of Tholen's hollow argument comes
7> tumbling down again.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

7> Man, it must be really embarassing to be as wrong as Tholen, as often
7> as he is.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

8> Dave can't even comprehend his own words, as evidenced 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.

8> How embarassingly incorrect and hypocritical.  Par for the course
8> for Dave.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> How typically hypocritical.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> Apparently Tholen thinks that he can make a definitive statement
9> such as an answer to a question by posing an irrelevant, unrelated
9> question.  Is he that stupid, hypocritical, and utterly brain dead?
9> Actually, in light of that question, I may see his point.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> And I have shown Tholen to be utterly incorrect by showing that
9> classes.zip was not compressed at all, unless one views it from
9> inside of JAVAINUF.EXE.  How embarassing.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> Clearly Tholen made another erroneous statement without bothering
9> to check his facts.  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.

9> Again Tholen defers to a previously lost argument to cover up and
9> distract readers from his mistakes in this one.  Too bad the
9> technique is so transparent.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> Note how Tholen changes gears yet again to the subject of the
9> correctly downloaded file.  And he has the nerve to complain about
9> chronology and consistency.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> And Tholen chooses whichever one happens to suit his "argument" on
9> a minute by minute basis.  Too bad this technique is so transparent
9> as well.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> And he didn't bother to verify his facts before shooting off his
9> mouth either.  How embarassing.  If I were him, I'd try to sweep
9> that embarassment under the rug.  Thank goodness I'm not.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> Which is just as ambiguous, as Tholen possessed both the runtime
9> and the development environment.  Too bad he just slipped up again.
9> Quite unfortunate that he can't keep his own argumentative tripe in
9> order in his own mind, let alone in public Usenet postings.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> Switch gears yet again back to Dave's incomplete downloaded file.
9> Talk about inconsistency...

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> An obvious lie, which unfortunately is also quite transparent.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> How ironic.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         09-Nov-99 11:28:25
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 10:58:10
Subj: (2/2) Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451492

9> Too bad the JPG image was already available in that time frame,
9> soundly disproving Tholen, as usual.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> Of course Dave had no evidence to support any of his claims since
9> he never bothered checking up on them before shooting off his
9> arrogant buzz-phrases.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> Funny how no one else involved in this thread had a problem
9> downloading the file.  Using Netscape for OS/2 or otherwise.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> And Dave still doesn't see the illogic in relying on this as
9> evidence.  How absurd, given that in order to see that message,
9> one has to run it in another operating system.  But don't let
9> that side-issue distract you from the true error that Tholen
9> just made, namely that the file needed to be executed at all
9> to extract its contents.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> Too bad this is completely inappropriate "evidence".

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> The error is that there is no need to execute the program to
9> extract its contents.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> Yes.  He's suffered enough embarassment misusing simple phrases
9> like "stub", "bound executable", and "display".  No need to
9> torment the poor man(?).

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> Unfortunately, the poor ignoramus Tholen doesn't realize that Mike
9> only gave the statistics on classes.zip as an example to show that
9> he could read the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.  I won't counter-accuse
9> Dave of lying here because he just seems too stupid to grasp what
9> actually happened.  It's not his fault.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> Dave doesn't need to see solid evidence, Curtis.  You should know
9> that he'll just ignore it by now if it doesn't suit his argument.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> Just like I said..

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> I suppose the 32 bit CRC of a file contained within the archive is
9> not "hard" enough evidence for Tholen who hypocritically didn't even
9> successfully extract his own version of said archive before shooting
9> off his mouth.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> And Dave has mastered them both in his writings.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> Why bother when we have a living(?) breathing(?) example of the
9> very incarnation of "inept" right here in COOA?

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

9> No surprise there.  Typical arrogance in the face of incontrovertible
9> evidence.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     09-Nov-99 12:59:15
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 10:58:10
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>


Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
>
> Like I said, they're cheap and stick with the old, inexpensive stuff
> generally.
>
> Sure, the "richer" European countries, such as Germany, may spend a
> bit more on technology, but the general populace of Europe is still
> behind the USA is buying computer technology.


When was the last time (if ever) you were in Europe?

>
> >There's a shop not far from where I live that sells American
> >classic cars from the 1960's
>
> A small shop that sells cars has no relevancy to the global computer
> market.

You're talking about European attitudes and buying practices. I'm trying
to explain it in terms you perhaps can understand.

>
> >I'm *in* the hardware business....average systems sold in the UK,
> >Western Europe and Scandanavia tend to be much higher spec machines than
> >those in the States.
>
> Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

Again, when was the last time you were in Europe? Ever read European
computer magazines (in English, of course) ? Ever been to CeBit?

>
> About the only thing "higher" in the spec is the price, because
> Europeans tend to get less bang for the buck than USA consumers. We
> have a lot of demand for technology over here. And we have a LOT of
> supply -- a cutthroat business here -- that's how insatiable is the
> USA's appetite for computer technology. Europe doesn't even compare.
>
> Of course, one thing that Scandanavia has is exorbitant inflation
> driving up the price of even the cheap, older technology that USA
> firms dump over there.

Haven't EVER been over here, have you?


>
> >> For example,
> >> long after USA developers had abandoned the C64 and moved onto the
> >> Amiga and ST and Windows 3.1, the Europeans were still playing with
> >> their C64's. By the time that the Europeans finally started to get
> >> their hands on the Amiga and Atari ST (which also outsold OS/2 and the
> >> Mac back then in Europe), we had already moved on to OS/2 and Windows.
> >> By the time the Europeans have finally retired those aging Amigas and
> >> Atari STs (which in some parts of Europe, would still be considered
> >> "luxury items") and gotten around to OS/2, we've moved onto Win32. By
> >> the time that European consumers and developers finally get around to
> >> Win32, we'll be onto something else even newer. That's the way that it
> >> is. Europe is *not* a leader in the computer business.
>
> >Which is why IBM has that nice big R&D center at Hurley.
>
> IBM has "branches" all over the world. Nevertheless, it's an American
> company. That makes sense. The USA is the leader in the computer
> business.

Yes, they have centers all over the world....but do a good portion of
their R&D at Hurley

>
> >> A big factor in this is that Europeans tend to not spend nearly as
> >> much on technology as Americans. They buy less goods, and what they do
> >> buy tends to be "the cheap stuff" by USA standards. You can't be a
> >> leader in technology with that sort of market. And European
> >> development reflects its own market.

Haven't been over here and probably won't even drink French wine because
it's the "old stuff" Americans won't touch, right?

>
> >Do you have a wide-screen TV?
>
> Wide screen TV's have nothing to do with the global computer market.

You're the one talking about Americans and technological superiority.
It's not Americans manufacturing or using wide-screen TV's, it's
Europeans and Asians. BTW, almost all computer monitors have been made
for sometime by Taiwanese/Korean TV manufactueres who switched
production from low-end TVs made for the American market.

>
> >Considering the fact that the US pirated European goods up until the
> >1970's it's an interesting complaint. Perhaps you're too young to
> >remember the court fights J.R.R. Tolkien had with Ace Books over their
> >pirated edition of "Lord of the Rings"?
>
> Lord of the Rings books have nothing whatsoever to do with the global
> computer market.

You're the one who wants to talk about pirated goods.

>
> >Are you serious???? Imagine that, can't sell a product in France unless
> >they have a user's manual in French!! Those sneaky Frogs. Guess what
> >Jeff, in FRANCE the people speak FRENCH! I wonder how much luck you'd
> >have with your computer (or) TV if the manuals were all written in the
> >languages of the manufacturers?
>
> Nevertheless, I'm free to purchase any legally imported good
> regardless of what language its manual is written in. That's because I
> don't live in France, so I enjoy some freedoms that they don't have in
> regard to computer software (not that I buy European software. In
> general, I've found it to be inferior to USA offerings).

Please tell us your vast experience in import/export. How many container
loads of goods you handle oer week? Ever had to fill out any forms to
get a system FCC or CE certified? What languages were they in? What labs
did you use? You say you can legally buy products without English
language manuals? Were they garanteed by the original manufacturer? (Did
you know the US is the leading force in trying to kill unauthorized
imports of products, so-call "gray market"?) How does US Customs handle
that? Had much experience with US Customs? They usually want everything,
mauals, certifications, etc, etc in ENGLISH.

Did you know the Japanese don't export MANY products to the US (but they
do to Europe) because of the American reputation for being too
technolically retarded to program a VCR?

Oh well, welcome to my killfill along with tholen.

Have a nice day,

Corey

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               09-Nov-99 13:12:21
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 10:58:10
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: [e-mail] (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn)

>> The book has already (literally) been written on this one. I just wonder if
>> the judgement (award) will be sufficient to make M$ suffer any.

> I don't think the court is terribly concerned about making MS suffer.  In
fact,
> I hope they are not because it would accomplish nothing.  What the court
should
> be concerned about is how to prevent MS from creating a similar such
situation
> in the future.  Retaliation and vengeance have no place in business or the
> government's regulation of it.  Fair market practices are the court's
concern.

In Holland we have special laws to take away the criminal income, benefits and
proseirty you amassed by those activities. Are you saying the sophistocated
USA
law-systems are letting the criminals away with that kind of money lacking
such law?

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: [e-mail]                               09-Nov-99 13:12:22
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 10:58:10
Subj: Re: Neat tagline I lifted...

From: [e-mail] (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn)

> And, you will agree, that even Hitler, Rush Limbaugh, Bill gates, Louis
> Farrakhan, any star trek writer, etc, etc, have said something which is
> actually POSITIVE at one point.
>
> Hitler was for getting Germany out of a depression which the idiots of
> the world gave them at the Treaty of Versailles in 1918.

Ah the usual one-sided K>R. interpretation of historic situtions to fit
the arbument he wants to make pops up again. I seem to remember
vaguely that there was a WORL WIDE depression in those days.

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: [e-mail]                            09-Nov-99 12:48:22
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 10:58:10
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Steve Drewell <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Jeff Glatt spewed:

ε Well, we probably *do* have 1000 american developers for every
ε European developer who is out there. That's why we're #1 for software
ε development, and Europe isn't. That's why the USA is where the action
ε is, and Europe isn't. That's why you're screwing around with OS/2 long
ε after the USA has moved onto something else.

Maybe one European developer is worth 1000 American developers? :-)
So, what has the USA moved onto? Win95/98/NT? Do you call that progress?

ε >Europeans
ε >tend to maintain their systems and not upgrade if there's no compelling
ε >reasons.
ε
ε Like I said, they're cheap and stick with the old, inexpensive stuff
ε generally.

Europeans are cheap? How many Europeans do you know, Jeff?

ε >Which is why IBM has that nice big R&D center at Hurley.
ε
ε IBM has "branches" all over the world. Nevertheless, it's an American
ε company. That makes sense. The USA is the leader in the computer
ε business.

Excuse me, but are you an idiot? You argue that we Europeans are
technologically inferior but when it's pointed out that one of the largest
technological companies in the world has a prime R&D site in Europe,
manned predominantly by Europeans, you dismiss it. What do you have
against Europeans? Are you another closed-minded American?

ε >> A big factor in this is that Europeans tend to not spend nearly as
ε >> much on technology as Americans. They buy less goods, and what they do
ε >> buy tends to be "the cheap stuff" by USA standards. You can't be a
ε >> leader in technology with that sort of market. And European
ε >> development reflects its own market.
ε
ε >Do you have a wide-screen TV?
ε
ε Wide screen TV's have nothing to do with the global computer market.

True, but you were talking about technology. Technology is not restricted
to the computer industry.

ε >Considering the fact that the US pirated European goods up until the
ε >1970's it's an interesting complaint. Perhaps you're too young to
ε >remember the court fights J.R.R. Tolkien had with Ace Books over their
ε >pirated edition of "Lord of the Rings"?
ε
ε Lord of the Rings books have nothing whatsoever to do with the global
ε computer market.

But you were basically referring to Europeans ripping off or pirating
American technology. The USA is just as guilty. Rocket technology and
supersonic technology are good examples of the USA ripping off Europeans.

ε >Are you serious???? Imagine that, can't sell a product in France unless
ε >they have a user's manual in French!! Those sneaky Frogs. Guess what
ε >Jeff, in FRANCE the people speak FRENCH! I wonder how much luck you'd
ε >have with your computer (or) TV if the manuals were all written in the
ε >languages of the manufacturers?
ε
ε Nevertheless, I'm free to purchase any legally imported good
ε regardless of what language its manual is written in. That's because I
ε don't live in France, so I enjoy some freedoms that they don't have in
ε regard to computer software (not that I buy European software. In
ε general, I've found it to be inferior to USA offerings).

All I can say is that you've got one huge chip on your shoulder regarding
Europeans and their technology. Maybe you should get out more.

Cheers,
Steve

Western Geophysical, Bedford, UK
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Western Geophysical, Houston, TX (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                           09-Nov-99 08:38:01
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <DjAV3.4211$[e-mail]>, on 11/08/99 at 08:35
AM,
   "Peter Nelson" <[e-mail]> said:

> But whether something is "better" is irrelevant since "better" is up to
> the market to decide.

Pure bull! This is nothing more than MicroSpeak spin. For example, take
automobile safety. Without question, an Abrams tank is far safer in a
crash than a Ford Taurus. By your reasoning, a Taurus is better.

> It's not fair to punish microsoft because its competitors are
> incompetent.

Again, more FUD from a MS Lemming. While one may argue the merits of IBM's
marketing department, one can certainly not argue validly that IBM is
incompetent at creating operating systems, software, etc.

In fact, if one uses you totally specious logic above, IBM is the best
since it sells more software than any other company in the world.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                                    09-Nov-99 13:44:17
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: Re: The Words of the Judge

From: [e-mail] (William Sonna)

On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:59:51, William Pridgen <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On Sun, 07 Nov 1999 11:31:52 -0500, Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >IBM OS/2 was platform agnostic in the earliest 90's.  The preload market
> >was foreclosed by MS in the mid 90's.  There are reliable references to
> >both facts.  Big Blues: the unmaking of IBM. describes the time frame IBM
> >became platform agnostic with OS/2.  At that time NT 3.1 did not even
> >exist.
>
> Yes, I know that IBM was selling PS/1s with Windows 3.1 in 1994,
> because I bought one.  That is a sort of "platform agnosticism," but
> IBM was also actively promoting Warp 3 then, and still pre-loading it.
> I used to read people's posts in the "IBM Connection" that AOL had,
> asking how to get the pre-loaded OS/2 off their computers!  IBM did
> not publicly declare their agnosticism until after Warp 4 came out.
>
> >Wendy Goldman's book", The Microsoft Files" describes in detail how MS put
> >an end to the prelaoded WARP systems in Germany and lead OEM company in
> >Germany - Vobis. IBM's own testimony under oath showed MS put significant
> >pressure on IBM to drop OS/2 preloads in 1995.   Germany is a good example
> >of what cold have happened with OS/2 in the US.  In Germany IBM had won
> >some significant preload deals and won a good fraction of the market.
>
> Perhaps there was less hostility toward IBM in Germany?  Perhaps some
> of the IBMers in Germany had more guts?
>
> >I object to the idea that a company makes one mistake and cannot recover.
> >IBM made mistakes with OS/2 but in a fair market they have the right and
> >expectation to try again to improve and or reposition the product.  It is
> >commonly said - with pride- that MS doesn't get it right until the 3rd
> >time.
>
> In our system, the consumer rules the market.  (I know a lot of people
> here don't believe that, so don't bother flaming me.)  The judge
> admitted that in his findings:  "By itself, Linux's open-source
> development model shows no signs of liberating that operating system
> from the cycle of consumer preferences and developer incentives that,
> when fueled by Windows' enormous reservoir of applications, prevents
> non-Microsoft operating systems from competing."  That's an
> interesting phrase, don't you think -- "cycle of consumer
> preferences"?  Those darned consumers keep on buying those nasty
> Microsoft products, even though WE know they're no good!
>

Not as intersting as you seem to think.  He said nothing about
liberating the consumer, although you may have read that into his
statement.  He said liberating (ie freeing) Linux, an inanimate
entity, from the constraints that relegate it to a niche market, and
thus make it less than serious competition for Microsoft.

Your last statement (poorly worded, in my opinion) is a cartoonish
extrapolation that has little to do with the judges' statement, which
was a disourse on why the presence of Linux does not alter the fact
that Microsoft is a monopoly.

In a nutshell, the Judge seems to totally agree with one notorious
former space-alien turned NT spammer who has stated in thread after
thread that absolute numbers of apps are all that matter.  Have you
not noticed that the judges's finding of fact reads straight and
literally from the book of Windows advocacy?

I have, and I now have to accept the fact that if the judge had seen
the situation the way I do, he probably WOULDN'T have found Microsoft
an illegal monopoly.  Instead, he seems to think the Windows Rulez
gang has it right.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                           09-Nov-99 08:42:28
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <BGtODEdD7Dku-pn2-y5g8MkRZDLrj@localhost>, on 11/09/99 at 01:12 PM,
   [e-mail] (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn) said:

>
> In Holland we have special laws to take away the criminal income,
> benefits and proseirty you amassed by those activities. Are you saying
> the sophistocated USA law-systems are letting the criminals away with
> that kind of money lacking such law?

We have similar laws. In antitrust law, damages can be and often are
trebled.

The purpose of sentencing an offender under criminal antitrust law
includes both punishment of the offender and acting as a deterrent to the
defendant and others against breaking the law in the future.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           09-Nov-99 08:46:27
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <BGtODEdD7Dku-pn2-GZLmZVdiWzKS@localhost>, on 11/09/99 at 01:12 PM,
   [e-mail] (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn) said:


> You correctly put "other OS" between quotes. As we will all know was
> MS-DOS 1.0 just a port of CP/M to the Intel processor. Which M$ knowing-
> ly (Gary's name was even in the code on a disk in a famous museum in NY
> according to Jerry Pournelle) robbed off Gary Killdall in a deal where
> they  screwed the porters of it to QDOS also. Two screws for one money
> (at the time), what else is new. Indeed, ashame that Gary did not live
> to watch it especially as he died bittered about this according to an
> article in Dr Dobbs.

Sorry, Peter, you have it wrong here. DOS was written by an employee of
Seattle Computer who was accused by Kildall of stealing CPM/86 from him.
However, the person, now an MS employee BTW, showed that the did not ever
have the code. Rather, he wrote his own software to do what the
documentation of CPM said a given command would do. Only the names of the
routines (Command.com, Fdisk.*, etc.) were the same. The code was entirely
different.

This is what MS stole from Seattle Computer as subsequently proven in a
suit settled for $975,000 some years later. According to published
articles in Seattle newspapers, MS realizing that the jury would make a
huge award upped its settlement offer ever half hour as the jury
deliberated. Interviews with jurors afterward showed that the jury was
working toward a number more than 50 times higher.

Furthermore, Kildall (Digital Research) did in fact offer an OS which was
available as an alternative to PC-DOS on true blue PC's and XT's. However,
Kildall priced himself out of the market since the option cost well over
$150 more which was a considerable sum back in 1983.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                                     09-Nov-99 15:03:22
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: "All bets are off regarding Windows" - IBM

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>

Read it and weep. The times they are a'changing.

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-1431968.html

Corey
Mirage Media
Nuenen, The Netherlands

Fine Art Nudes Kyoto
http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/photos/gallery/C_SHADOW/index.html
Polaroid Transfer Art
http://www.frii.com/~uliasz/photoart/polaroid/t_gallery/corey.htm

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

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

From: [e-mail]                           09-Nov-99 08:59:14
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/09/99 at 11:23 AM,
   [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt) said:

> Of course, one thing that Scandanavia has is exorbitant inflation
> driving up the price of even the cheap, older technology that USA firms
> dump over there.

I don't know what kind of chauvinist asshole you are, but you sure as hell
don't know a damn thing about the European economy, European laws, etc. I
am very proud to be an American, but you are maligning Scandanavia, France
( a country for which I have very little use), and all Europeans in
general  with absolutely no basis in fact.

You don't even know much about American companies either based on your
assertion that IBM is an American company. Many years ago, when TJ Watson,
Sr. was still running IBM, he split it into two independent entities, IBM
and IBM World. IBM only manufactured and sold products in the US and
Canada. IBM World had its own products, marketing, etc. in the rest of the
world. IBM World produced machines similar in function but very different
from those of IBM World. Some technology from one was in fact
cross-pollinated, but absolutely not all.

For many years, Europe has been far ahead of the US in the biggest
consumer item, - television. Perhaps when the Japanese driven HDTV becomes
the standard we will finally catch up. Anyone who has been to Europe knows
full well that TV there has better definition, better color, etc. than
anything available here.

Elsewhere, you claimed that the market would determine what was the better
product. Perhaps you have noticed that BMW and Mercedes Benz automobiles
are consistently rated as far superior to anything from the Big 3 or Japan
by the market. You seem to equate volume of sales to market choice. That
is pure bullshit. Cost is the driving factor in the US economy. Since you
obviously have never travelled to Europe (probably can't even find it on a
globe), I suggest you go past a private golf course and count the number
of Mercedes, BMWs, Jaguars, etc. in the members' parking lot. Then tell me
what the market thinks is the better car. Those who can afford MB's BMW's,
Jags, etc. buy them overwhelmingly. Hell, according to current sales
statistics, MB outsells Cadillac in the US.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           09-Nov-99 09:18:05
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/08/99 at 09:25 PM,
   Mirage Media <[e-mail]> said:

> Can you please tell me why most of OS/2's development is now done in
> Europe and not the US? Could it be that Microsoft isn't able to throw
> it's weight around here quite as much as they've done in the US?

Certainly that is a significant, perhaps the most significant part of it.
However, I believe that it is also significant that those making decisions
in European companies tend to be more conservative, less rah-rah, than
their counterparts in the US. European companies seem to be able to see
the ultimate benefit in investing in the best technology even though the
initial costs are higher. European enterprises plan much farther ahead
than their US counterparts. Decisions in US companies are more concerned
with the next quarter's balance sheet than the next or even second next
one. Also, European companies for the most part do not appear nearly so
chauvinstic as US corporations. One finds components from half a dozen
countries in BMW's, Mercedes Benz's, VW's. Airbus is giving Boeing stiff
competition because of the cross-pollination of ideas, products, etc. from
a dozen or more countries.

The Common Market allows companies in different countries to cooperate
while our laws here in the US call this collusion and make it illegal. At
one time, America was the leader in automobile production and sales
worldwide. Once the concept of a common market became reality and had a
few years to mature, European cars became much superior to Detroit iron.
Likewise, Japanese law which allows Toyota to talk to Honda, Mitsubishi,
etc., led to far superior products than we produced. If one went to an
automobile show in London, Paris, Frankfurt, etc. one would see the
executives of the various manufacturers talking to each other, eating
together, etc. If the same thing happened here, they would be breaking our
laws.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           09-Nov-99 09:30:23
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/08/99 at 09:02 PM,
   Dennis Peterson <[e-mail]> said:

> > Judge Jackson's Second Finding Of Fact: 'It is Microsoft's corporate
> > practice to pressure other firms to halt software development that
> > either shows the potential to weaken the applications barrier to entry
> > or competes directly with Microsoft's most cherished sofware products.'
> >
> > Is there some reason why you don't think that IBM was one of these
> > "other firms?"

> Is there any evidence to suggest they were, at least within the scope of
> this thread?

Read the whole decision, Dennis. Judge Jackson specifically used OS/2 as
an example of MS's ability to destroy competition.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           09-Nov-99 09:32:12
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/08/99 at 08:07 PM,
   [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt) said:


> Again, as an ex-OS/2 developer who has also listened to and conversed
> with other ex-OS/2 developers, I know that judge's "finding of fact" has
> little bearing to reality. OS/2 developers abandoned OS/2 mostly because
> they completely lost any faith in IBM as a "partner" (and I use that
> term is the loosest sense). I've outlined a lot of reasons for that in
> my other posts here, and cited examples of the opinions of ex-OS/2
> developers.

More nonsense. You have joined the killfile. About the only thing your
demonstrated intelligence would qualify you for would be to put labels on
boxes in a software factory.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                                     09-Nov-99 06:47:19
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


"M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn" 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.



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

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

From: [e-mail]                           09-Nov-99 09:45:09
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: Re: Neat tagline I lifted...

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <BGtODEdD7Dku-pn2-FPdhQmdlj1dP@localhost>, on 11/09/99 at 01:12 PM,
   [e-mail] (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn) said:

> Ah the usual one-sided K>R. interpretation of historic situtions to fit
> the arbument he wants to make pops up again. I seem to remember vaguely
> that there was a WORL WIDE depression in those days.

There is an element of truth in both the statement you replied to as well
as yours. The depression which became world wide happened seven or eight
years before it did in the rest of the world.

By 1921 or 1922, Germany was in the throes of a serious depression with
rampant inflation, high unemployment, etc. as a result of the terms of the
Treaty of Versailles. The reparations imposed on a country which was
demilitarized and largely stripped of machinery, etc. by the victors
proved beyond the economic base of Germany.

The rest of the world didn't decend into depression until 1930 by which
time Germany was beginning to listen seriously to the Nazis and Hitler. To
blame the WW 1 allies for the rise of Hitler is not unreasonable. The
terms of the treaty were onerous to a degree not seen before or since in
the western world. They virtually guaranteed that rather than a making a
treaty, they had created a tenuous truce at best.

Fortunately for the world, the US, Great Britain, France, etc. learned the
lesson. The terms of the treaties which ended World War II were entirely
reasonable, workable, and looked to rehabilitate Germany and Japan rather
than punish and relegate them to an antedeluvian pastoral piriah.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                          09-Nov-99 09:54:23
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: Re: OS/2 ISVs...Judge Jackson says...

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Another view can be:

It's dangerous to dance with an elephant (IBM).  You might get stepped
on if it turns too quickly.

It's dangerous to dance with a tiger (MS).  You might get eaten.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

Esther Schindler wrote:
>
> Microsoft can be a bully *and* IBM can be an utter idiot.
>
> These are not mutually exclusive attitudes.
>
> --Esther
>
> On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:25:59, "David T. Johnson"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> |
> |
> | Esther Schindler wrote:
> | >
> | > On Mon, 1 Nov 1999 14:53:47, "David T. Johnson"
> | > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> | > | I appreciate your viewpoint but you haven't mentioned anything that
> | > | would have prevented an OS/2 version from being released.  Given
> | > | reasonable care, the code would have been expected to be available if
> | > | such a project were to be undertaken.  Yes, the code could have been
> | > | lost but this is highly unlikely and is not what we should
automatically
> | > | assume unless you have evidence to the contrary.
> | >
> | > Unless the code was lost or wasn't part of the transfer of ownership
> | > (which is more probable than you might think), we could presume (in
> | > the absence of facts) that there were no technical barriers to
> | > finishing the "it's almost done" WP6OS2 code. By the time Corel owned
> | > the software, however, there were plenty of _people_ reasons that made
> | > such a project unlikely... not the least of which was that its
> | > champions were long gone, that the people involved had fled or were
> | > working on another project for years or whatever. In any large
> | > corporation, starting a new project (or worse, reviving one long gone)
> | > requires a champion, someone who really believes in it. And Corel
> | > never had a champion for OS/2 that I could tell. (If it did, that
> | > person was shot very early on, long before WPCorp arrived.)
> | >
> | > All that happens inside a company without _any_ outside influence,
> | > whether the project in question is providing day-care facilities for
> | > employees' children or developing an application for a
> | > new-to-the-company operating system. Projects can die or be
> | > inadequately funded or whatever for plenty of political reasons that
> | > have *nothing* to do with Microsoft or any outside influence.
> | >
> | > | Well, I might have agreed with you before the MS antitrust trial
wrapped
> | > | up but after seeing MS business practices exposed, it is extremely
hard
> | > | to believe that Microsoft did NOT whump on Wordperfect until their
OS/2
> | > | projects were dead or disabled.  Do you REALLY believe that MS didn't
do
> | > | that?
> | >
> | > Yes, that's what I really believe.
> |
> | Here is Judge Jackson's FINDING OF FACT in the Microsoft antitrust
> | trial:
> |
> | Judge Jackson's Second Finding Of Fact: 'It is Microsoft's corporate
> | practice to pressure other firms to halt software development that
> | either shows the potential to weaken the applications barrier to entry
> | or competes directly with Microsoft's most cherished sofware products.'
> |
> | (Now I'll have a better defense if Microsoft sues me for
> | libel...Wouldn't you agree Esther?)
> |
> | >
> | > --Esther

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          09-Nov-99 10:13:24
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: Re: The Words of the Judge

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

I notice that Jeff felt that he should remove the compliment
I gave to him in my first post in this thread.  So, I'll
add another to that one:

Jeff,
I appreciate the tone and content you've posted in this
thread.

Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >Bennie Nelson
> >He attempts to use anecdotal evidence from his own
> >experience to prove a universal point.
>
> You mean how like Tholen attempts to use anecdotal evidence from his
> own experience to totally dismiss the points of anyone who mentions
> that they've had a problem with OS/2?
>
> But of course, what you "obviously" fail to see is that I'm *hardly*
> the only OS/2 developer who feels that IBM and OS/2 developers were a
> bad match due to the fact that IBM is not a company that should be
> selling a niche market item, nor dealing with anyone other than
> Fortune 500 companies placing large orders for big ticket IBM
> products. As I pointed out before (and you've failed to grasp because
> you're only an enduser who *thinks* that he knows what is on the minds
> of OS/2 developers who dealt with IBM), this is a prevalent view among
> ex-OS/2 developers. You should actually talk to some of them, and read
> posts that they written on the subject, so you'll learn about this.

No, Jeff.  You missed my point.  Let me give a reverse example to try
and clarify what I said:

If I state that my experience with OS/2 has been very good and that
ALL PC users should therefore use OS/2, you would reject that point.
In fact, my OS/2 experience has been very, very good, and I am quite
happy with using the OS for my business computing needs.  I do not
believe that my experience should be extrapolated to apply to all
other PC users, to most PC users, or even to many PC users.  I don't
pretend to have that much knowledge.  That is the error I believe
you made: you overreached in applying your points.

That said, I'd like to add that much of what you've said IN THIS
THREAD has been right on the mark.  I do not agree with all of what
you've said, but I do agree that IBM, big lumbering elephant that
it is, made decisions that squashed some mice (small OS/2 ISVs) in
the OS/2 field.

However, Microsoft has crushed many businesses in its path to success.
Remember Stacker?  How many vendors of DOS and Windows utilities have
been swallowed whole by the Redmond giant?

The difference is that IBM crushed businesses because it was too big
to see them clearly or at all.  MS crushed businesses to take over
their marketshare.  And that is why the Judge ruled against MS in
the case.  A monopoly is not allowed to wield its power to destroy
competitors in the way MS has done.

>
> The fact that you don't even know what some OS/2 developers have said
> about IBM in this regard (some of which I've pointed out in my posts)
> underscores that you do not know anything about OS/2 developers.

Again, I only object to the universalist aspect of your point.  I know
that what you described occurred all too often (once is too much in my
estimation).  IBM should not have made the about face it did.  They
had a good start in supporting games, etc, but it needed a lot of
work.  I remember when the Joystick driver came out.  I believe two
guys coded that, and IBM eventually supported for it.  Then the decision
came, (I guess someone remembered the "B" means Business) and OS/2 was
no longer a gaming platform.

And MMOS2 needs a lot of work.  It was a good start, though.

But, these are reasons why OS/2 is not for everyone, developers and
users, alike.

>
> It always surprises me how little OS/2 Advocates actually know about
> their very own market and support. That's quite telling in of itself.
> It points to one very big reason why OS/2 Advocacy has been a dismal
> failure.
>
> >The flaws in that method are quite obvious.
>
> If true, then it's telling that those methods aren't "obvious" to you
> when Tholen employs them.

If you haven't noticed, I disagreed with Tholen in the thread entitled,
"Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!"  But not for the
reason you just gave. You do seem to think that I agree with him on
everything, and I certainly do not.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               09-Nov-99 09:57:28
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Thomas Galley <[e-mail]>

Hello!

So after you let yourself guide by your past disappointements in the
OS/2-market to rage against this OS in a newsgroup dedicated to it
(which is strange enough), you give proof of your, ummm let's say
"limited" perspective of Europe. It is true that the most interesting
developements in IT still come from the US, but from there to conclude
on the superiority of the US industry in the way you did is completely
false.

The fact that we don't follow each hipe from overseas is, in my
understanding, rather a plus for our side, as we *still* are able to
come to our own decisions in what we are using and what not.

From your writings I conclude that you are completely unaware of the
European every-day realities one of which is language. You seem to
consider the multiplicity of languages spoken here an obstacle for US
economic expansion, I (and most Europeans I venture to say) believe in
the richness of its cultural implications: each time you learn a new
language, you enter in a new world of seeing and understanding the world
(be aware of it, I don't say one should stick exclusivly to its own
language! One should be open to the world. I for example love american
SF and I prefer to read it in English.). So could you give me any reason
why a french or german user does not have the right to get a product and
a manual in his/her native language (mind you, prices are usually higher
here!). This leads me to your statement about piracy. I am aware of the
fact that there are countries in which piracy is an issue, but from
there to place all of Europe in one basket goes very far. I remember
that in my student days I *paid* for a licence for Word 5.5 (yeah, I did
not know better at the time) which was at about 250 Euro. The same goes
for my OS/2 stuff: I believe any product I use is licenced and paid for.

I would be happy if you would reconsider some of your statements, but
despite all

Best Greetings from Europe

Thomas

Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >Mirage Media
> >Can you please tell me why most of OS/2's development is now done in
> >Europe and not the US?
>
> European developers tend to lag behind the USA. They have neither the
> resources nor the support infrastructure to keep up with the USA in
> the computer business. (The internet has helped to bring about a
> little more equality even though USA citizens comprise the majority of
> internet users as well, but still, the USA has the most software
> developers and most software development. In terms of software
> development, Europe is akin to a "third world power" compared to the
> USA). We're the leaders in computer technology. Certainly, we drive
> the technology marketplace, and this is where the real action is.
> Europeans tend to acquire the USA's castoffs for a cheap price after
> the American consumer has moved onto to the newer stuff. For example,
> long after USA developers had abandoned the C64 and moved onto the
> Amiga and ST and Windows 3.1, the Europeans were still playing with
> their C64's. By the time that the Europeans finally started to get
> their hands on the Amiga and Atari ST (which also outsold OS/2 and the
> Mac back then in Europe), we had already moved on to OS/2 and Windows.
> By the time the Europeans have finally retired those aging Amigas and
> Atari STs (which in some parts of Europe, would still be considered
> "luxury items") and gotten around to OS/2, we've moved onto Win32. By
> the time that European consumers and developers finally get around to
> Win32, we'll be onto something else even newer. That's the way that it
> is. Europe is *not* a leader in the computer business.
>
> A big factor in this is that Europeans tend to not spend nearly as
> much on technology as Americans. They buy less goods, and what they do
> buy tends to be "the cheap stuff" by USA standards. You can't be a
> leader in technology with that sort of market. And European
> development reflects its own market.
>
> Furthermore, the European market is rife with software piracy and
> violations of US copyrighted software. Coupled with the expense and
> hassles of selling to Europe (for example, a US company can't even
> sell a product in France unless it provides a user's manual in
> French), most USA developers don't expend much effort at all in
> marketing/selling to Europe. The result is a very "loose",
> disorganized, chaotic market where there aren't many standards, nor
> all that much happening, and which is largely a "dumping ground" of
> technology that Americans no longer want, but which can be sold to
> Europeans for at least a little bit of money (in lieu of being
> scrapped altogether).
>
> I'm not saying that European development is worthless, but it's
> largely irrelevant to the computer market outside of Europe, and
> therefore is irrelevant to the dynamics of the USA market. Attempting
> to draw some sort of conclusions about the USA market, from the
> European market, is a very dubious proposition at best

--
PIRONET INTRANET AG
Thomas Paul Galley, MA (CCNA) - Internet/Intranet Trainee
Im Mediapark 5 - 50670 Köln
Tel.: [phone] - FAX: [phone]
mailto:[e-mail] - http://www.pironet.com
certified professional Java Programmer (see link below)
http://www.tekmetrics.com/transcript.shtml?pid=57102

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PIRONET AG News-System (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                           09-Nov-99 09:59:13
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/09/99 at
12:48 PM,
   Steve Drewell <[e-mail]> said:

> But you were basically referring to Europeans ripping off or pirating
> American technology. The USA is just as guilty. Rocket technology and
> supersonic technology are good examples of the USA ripping off
> Europeans.

Steve, I have generally agreed wholeheartedly with what you have posted in
this newsgroup. However, I do take some issue with the above statement.

You seem to forget that Robert Goddard is considered the father of rocket
technology. He was an American. True the allies did bring the leading
scientists from Pennemunde to the US after the War and those men were
important, very important in developing modern rockets. However, the
Russians didn't get many, if any, major rocket scientists from Germany and
were the first to orbit a satellite, send a human into space, etc.

As to supersonic technology, Bell Aircraft was an entirely US operation
with no captured German engineers when it built the X2 which was the first
aircraft piloted beyond the speed of sound. Likewise, the US produced the
first operational transsonic fighters. The turbojet engine was developed
in the US, Great Britain, and Germany contemporaneously and independently
of each other. Germany got the ME-262 into the air before the US, but we
were test-flying our first planes before the end of the War. Moreover, as
a long time (42 year long) pilot, I can assure you that the SST is an
operational nightmare which required serious safety tradeoffs to even be
able to fly from Paris to New York or Washington or London to either.

Any other airplane in the world operating into or out of the US (and as
far as I recall any European country) is required to carry enough fuel to
fly to its destination, shoot an approach to minimums, execute a missed
approach, fly to an alternate airport, shoot an approach, and land with 45
minutes fuel still on board at the arrival gate. The SST cannot do this. A
waiver was given to BOAC (now BA) and Air France. A very significant
number of flights, particularly Air France flights, have to divert to
Boston, Gander, etc.  for fuel many days due to headwinds on the westbound
leg. In the summer, Air France frequently has to taxi back to the gate at
Dulles for fuel if they are delayed more than 4 minutes from leaving the
gate (actually at Dulles, they aren't gates. The planes are parked on the
ramp and transporters take the passengers from the terminal to the plane.)
until cleared for takeoff. And the SST burns several times more fuel for
100 passengers than a 767 does for 300+ passengers. It requires a minimum
of 3 men in the cockpit as opposed to 767's 2 man crew. Even a 747 uses a
third of the fuel of an SST and can carry upwards of 500 passengers.

Britain, without any help from Germany, flew the first supersonic
transport. It was a disaster due to inadequate understanding and testing
of the rigors of high altitude, high speed flight. Only the two national
airlines of Britain and France ever flew the SST which they jointly
developed and which has proven to be an economic and ecological disaster.
The US chose to prohibit the development of an SST for environmental
reasons (noise and air pollution). That we are and were capable is proven
by our large fleet of highly successful supersonic fighters and bombers,
none of which required or utilized the talents of captured German
engineers.

Since SST's cannot exceed the speed of sound over land, they are only
useful for long overwater routes; but only about 8 percent of airline
passengers fly such routes in a given year. Tourism is by far the biggest
source of revenue for trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific operations. Business
travel is a distant second and more and more corporations no longer are
willing to pay for first class seats. So the likelihood of selling enough
seats on an SST are poor since the fare would by necessity have to be a
minimum of 8 or more times that of a tourist class seat when one considers
the cost of the aircraft, the extra fuel, etc.

For example, I just used British Airways automated system to check flight
time and fare from New York to London on 11/22/99 returning 12/2/99. The
ONLY fare on the Concorde is $10,382.30. The cheapest available fare on
those dates on standard aircraft is $1,908.30 or more than 5 times
cheaper. The system also told me that cheaper flights were available on
other dates. On the internet, I found New York-London flights on those
dates for as low as $484 available as of 10 minutes ago.

And just what does that extra $8,924 buy me? A larger seat? Nope, the
seats on the Concorde are the smallest first class seats in the world.
Better service? Nope. The Concorde carries 2 cabin attendants. All flights
with more than 19 passengers require one cabin attendant for every 50
seats.

I would buy me 3 hours of time. Now someone making $2,975 an hour would
have an annual salary of $5,949,993 based on a 2,000 hour work year. I
don't think there are 400 people with that kind of income. And people with
that kind of income rarely travel alone, so that for two people
travelling, the income would have to be just under $11,000,000 per year.
And if one considers the difference based on the price on American, the
income for one person would have to be $6,900,000 for one or $13,800,000
for a couple. Other than the Shiek of Oman and Bill Gates, not too many
people could justify the saving of 3 hours on a 9 hour journey when one
considers the time getting to and from the airport, the 2 hour before
departure waiting period, the wait for baggage, etc. Now throw in a fuel
stop westbound, and the poor sucker on the Concorde beats his low fare
cousin to New York by about 20 minutes.

And according to published figures from BA, the Concorde is the least
profitable aircraft it flies. Perhaps if it were not for the Concorde, BA
wouldn't have to charge more than 4 times what American charges for coach.

Moreover, no runway at any commercial airport in the world is built to
standards which would allow regular operations of an aircraft of 1.6
million pounds. [See next paragraph] (I may be wrong about the new Hong
Kong airport. It may be able to handle such a weight) When the Russian
Federation sent their 6 engine plane to Philadelphia to pick up medicines
and other relief supplies for the Ukraine dontated by the Ukranian
community here in Philadelphia, it was unable to be fueled for the return
trip at Philadelphia because of runway and ramp weight bearing capacity.
It took off with minimal fuel and went via an Air Force Base where it was
fueled for the trip. Yet Philadelphia routinely handles grossed out 747's,
the heaviest transport operating in the world today. They can use every
taxiway, runway, and ramp other than the general aviation ramp and three
taxiways serving it. (This will change in 2001 when a new commuter plane
runway at PHL is completed. It will only have a bearing weight of 250,000
pounds.)

So, tell me Steve, just how the US ripped off the Europeans when it comes
to supersonic flight. Our non-government driven airplane manufacturers saw
the economic folly of a 100 passenger SST and by the time the technology
to build a larger one was available, saw the ecological harm such a plane
would cause. The last article I recall on the economic feasibility of an
SST carrying 400 passengers would require a plane weighing in excess of
1.6 million pounds to make the flight from Los Angeles to Hong Kong or
nearly 2 million pounds for LA to Sydney. It would have to weigh nearly
1,100,000 pounds to make New York to London or Paris. And it would take
six times as much fuel as a 767. This is folly economically even
disregarding the ecological harm it would cause as demonstrated above.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                             09-Nov-99 16:02:03
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <8083vj$gd0$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
>
> > Your repeated requests for clarification of the term "multi-level"
> > indicate a reading comprehension problem,
>
> Incorrect; rather it indicates the lack of any explanation from you
> regarding your meaning.

Wrong. My meaning is clear; its opacity to you is merely due to your
reading comprehension problem.

> > given that the meaning I used is clear.
>
> Obviously not, Lucien, otherwise it wouldn't have been necessary to
> ask for an explanation of your meaning.

Wrong. You ask for clarification merely because you cannot comprehend
the meaning of my usage of the term.

> >> That's rather ironic, coming from someone who doesn't even realize
> >> the irrelevance of his own thesis and who can't comprehend the
> >> relevance of two simple tests.
>
> > Your "tests" demonstrate nothing relevant.
>
> On the contrary, my tests demonstrate that your argument is wrong.

They do nothing of the kind.

> That's quite relevant.

Wrong. See above.

> > They are merely nonsense laden with invective,
>
> Where is the alleged invective in those two simple tests, Lucien?

Read the "tests".

> Where is the alleged nonsense in those two simple tests, Lucien?

Read the "tests".

> Did you even bother to read them before you deleted them?

Irrelevant.

> >> I've told you that it is not clear to me,
>
> > That it is not clear to you is obvious, but that is merely a side
> > effect of your reading comprehension problem.
>
> Illogical, given that you haven't provided any explanation of your
> meaning to comprehend, Lucien.

My meaning is clear; reread the statements.

> >> you simply point me to someone else's meaning and claim that it's
> >> the same as yours, thus no independent comparison of meanings can
> >> be done by me.
>
> > Wrong.
>
> Illogical; how can a comparison be made of two things when only one
> of the two is avaiable?

Illogical question, given that both meanings are available and clear.
Thus, a comparison can be made.

> >>>> The underlying ambiguity of what, Lucien?
>
> >>> The underlying ambiguity WRT quantification; can't you read?
>
> >> I can't read what isn't there, Lucien.
>
> > That you cannot comprehend the statements is obvious.
>
> I can't comprehend explanatory statements that haven't been made,
Lucien.

Indeed, you seem unable to comprehend very much at all in this
exchange. Nonetheless, let's try again.

Here is your statement regarding the JDK sentence (emphasis mine):

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

Here is your statement regarding the JDK sentence (emphasis mine):

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

Note the discussion of the ambiguity WRT quantification; also note the
agreement between the two statements.

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: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            09-Nov-99 17:01:13
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: Ahhh... Concorde

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

But it's such a beautiful plane... <sigh>


On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:59:27, Bob Germer <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> On <[e-mail]>, on 11/09/99 at
> 12:48 PM,
>    Steve Drewell <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > But you were basically referring to Europeans ripping off or pirating
> > American technology. The USA is just as guilty. Rocket technology and
> > supersonic technology are good examples of the USA ripping off
> > Europeans.
>
> Steve, I have generally agreed wholeheartedly with what you have posted in
> this newsgroup. However, I do take some issue with the above statement.
>
> You seem to forget that Robert Goddard is considered the father of rocket
> technology. He was an American. True the allies did bring the leading
> scientists from Pennemunde to the US after the War and those men were
> important, very important in developing modern rockets. However, the
> Russians didn't get many, if any, major rocket scientists from Germany and
> were the first to orbit a satellite, send a human into space, etc.
>
> As to supersonic technology, Bell Aircraft was an entirely US operation
> with no captured German engineers when it built the X2 which was the first
> aircraft piloted beyond the speed of sound. Likewise, the US produced the
> first operational transsonic fighters. The turbojet engine was developed
> in the US, Great Britain, and Germany contemporaneously and independently
> of each other. Germany got the ME-262 into the air before the US, but we
> were test-flying our first planes before the end of the War. Moreover, as
> a long time (42 year long) pilot, I can assure you that the SST is an
> operational nightmare which required serious safety tradeoffs to even be
> able to fly from Paris to New York or Washington or London to either.
>
> Any other airplane in the world operating into or out of the US (and as
> far as I recall any European country) is required to carry enough fuel to
> fly to its destination, shoot an approach to minimums, execute a missed
> approach, fly to an alternate airport, shoot an approach, and land with 45
> minutes fuel still on board at the arrival gate. The SST cannot do this. A
> waiver was given to BOAC (now BA) and Air France. A very significant
> number of flights, particularly Air France flights, have to divert to
> Boston, Gander, etc.  for fuel many days due to headwinds on the westbound
> leg. In the summer, Air France frequently has to taxi back to the gate at
> Dulles for fuel if they are delayed more than 4 minutes from leaving the
> gate (actually at Dulles, they aren't gates. The planes are parked on the
> ramp and transporters take the passengers from the terminal to the plane.)
> until cleared for takeoff. And the SST burns several times more fuel for
> 100 passengers than a 767 does for 300+ passengers. It requires a minimum
> of 3 men in the cockpit as opposed to 767's 2 man crew. Even a 747 uses a
> third of the fuel of an SST and can carry upwards of 500 passengers.
>
> Britain, without any help from Germany, flew the first supersonic
> transport. It was a disaster due to inadequate understanding and testing
> of the rigors of high altitude, high speed flight. Only the two national
> airlines of Britain and France ever flew the SST which they jointly
> developed and which has proven to be an economic and ecological disaster.
> The US chose to prohibit the development of an SST for environmental
> reasons (noise and air pollution). That we are and were capable is proven
> by our large fleet of highly successful supersonic fighters and bombers,
> none of which required or utilized the talents of captured German
> engineers.
>
> Since SST's cannot exceed the speed of sound over land, they are only
> useful for long overwater routes; but only about 8 percent of airline
> passengers fly such routes in a given year. Tourism is by far the biggest
> source of revenue for trans-Atlantic or trans-Pacific operations. Business
> travel is a distant second and more and more corporations no longer are
> willing to pay for first class seats. So the likelihood of selling enough
> seats on an SST are poor since the fare would by necessity have to be a
> minimum of 8 or more times that of a tourist class seat when one considers
> the cost of the aircraft, the extra fuel, etc.
>
> For example, I just used British Airways automated system to check flight
> time and fare from New York to London on 11/22/99 returning 12/2/99. The
> ONLY fare on the Concorde is $10,382.30. The cheapest available fare on
> those dates on standard aircraft is $1,908.30 or more than 5 times
> cheaper. The system also told me that cheaper flights were available on
> other dates. On the internet, I found New York-London flights on those
> dates for as low as $484 available as of 10 minutes ago.
>
> And just what does that extra $8,924 buy me? A larger seat? Nope, the
> seats on the Concorde are the smallest first class seats in the world.
> Better service? Nope. The Concorde carries 2 cabin attendants. All flights
> with more than 19 passengers require one cabin attendant for every 50
> seats.
>
> I would buy me 3 hours of time. Now someone making $2,975 an hour would
> have an annual salary of $5,949,993 based on a 2,000 hour work year. I
> don't think there are 400 people with that kind of income. And people with
> that kind of income rarely travel alone, so that for two people
> travelling, the income would have to be just under $11,000,000 per year.
> And if one considers the difference based on the price on American, the
> income for one person would have to be $6,900,000 for one or $13,800,000
> for a couple. Other than the Shiek of Oman and Bill Gates, not too many
> people could justify the saving of 3 hours on a 9 hour journey when one
> considers the time getting to and from the airport, the 2 hour before
> departure waiting period, the wait for baggage, etc. Now throw in a fuel
> stop westbound, and the poor sucker on the Concorde beats his low fare
> cousin to New York by about 20 minutes.
>
> And according to published figures from BA, the Concorde is the least
> profitable aircraft it flies. Perhaps if it were not for the Concorde, BA
> wouldn't have to charge more than 4 times what American charges for coach.
>
> Moreover, no runway at any commercial airport in the world is built to
> standards which would allow regular operations of an aircraft of 1.6
> million pounds. [See next paragraph] (I may be wrong about the new Hong
> Kong airport. It may be able to handle such a weight) When the Russian
> Federation sent their 6 engine plane to Philadelphia to pick up medicines
> and other relief supplies for the Ukraine dontated by the Ukranian
> community here in Philadelphia, it was unable to be fueled for the return
> trip at Philadelphia because of runway and ramp weight bearing capacity.
> It took off with minimal fuel and went via an Air Force Base where it was
> fueled for the trip. Yet Philadelphia routinely handles grossed out 747's,
> the heaviest transport operating in the world today. They can use every
> taxiway, runway, and ramp other than the general aviation ramp and three
> taxiways serving it. (This will change in 2001 when a new commuter plane
> runway at PHL is completed. It will only have a bearing weight of 250,000
> pounds.)
>
> So, tell me Steve, just how the US ripped off the Europeans when it comes
> to supersonic flight. Our non-government driven airplane manufacturers saw
> the economic folly of a 100 passenger SST and by the time the technology
> to build a larger one was available, saw the ecological harm such a plane
> would cause. The last article I recall on the economic feasibility of an
> SST carrying 400 passengers would require a plane weighing in excess of
> 1.6 million pounds to make the flight from Los Angeles to Hong Kong or
> nearly 2 million pounds for LA to Sydney. It would have to weigh nearly
> 1,100,000 pounds to make New York to London or Paris. And it would take
> six times as much fuel as a 767. This is folly economically even
> disregarding the ecological harm it would cause as demonstrated above.
>
>
> --
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
> MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
> Aut Pax Aut Bellum
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
>

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: [e-mail]                                      09-Nov-99 17:02:00
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 13:50:28
Subj: Re: "All bets are off regarding Windows" - IBM

From: [e-mail] (Aaron Kuperman)

The article appears to be describing an updated version of a "dumb
terminal". That isn't new. It doesn't sound like a consumer or small
business item, and unlike a PC, it won't run without its server. If it is
nice and cheap (e.g. only a few hundered) it might do well, or if one
finds a way to let current PCs (Pentium 300+ with 64 Meg) be servers to
these glorified terminals. Since IBM appears to prefer to sell servers to
selling PCs, it is logical that they should try to sell dumb terminals
that require servers.  [posted on lunch time,not company time]


Mirage Media ([e-mail]) wrote:
: Read it and weep. The times they are a'changing.

: http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-1431968.html

: Corey
: Mirage Media
: Nuenen, The Netherlands

: Fine Art Nudes Kyoto
: http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/photos/gallery/C_SHADOW/index.html
: Polaroid Transfer Art
: http://www.frii.com/~uliasz/photoart/polaroid/t_gallery/corey.htm

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             08-Nov-99 08:35:15
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 14:42:23
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Peter Nelson" <[e-mail]>

Peter Ammon wrote in message <[e-mail]>...
>Kelly Robinson wrote:
>>
>> 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...  why people, especially those
in
>> the IBM and apple arenas, don't understand this is well beyond me because
>> it's true.
>
>Be OS is, technically speaking, a much better product than Windows.

Depends on how you define "technically speaking".   If someone
considers the ability to run the largest number of avaliable software
packages a key technical consideration then it may not be better.
Also, the user-interface is very technical part of any product.  Can
BeOS be installed and used by my mother-in-law?

Linux is a good example of this problem.   They get to say they're
"technically better" because they have a narrow definition of better.
I'm a sw engineer with 20 years of experience on Unix and Windows
and I recently spent a week attempting to install Caldera's Open
Linux 2.3 simply follwoing the instructions in their product's
documentation, and it still isn't installed.   (if I went outside
the box (literally) and downloaded 3rd party install tools it
would be done by now but my goal was to evaluate Caldera's
install).   Yet these were TECHNICAL issues (Calder'a version
of PartitionMagic not loading, for instance).

But whether something is "better" is irrelevant since "better" is
up to the market to decide.

It's not fair to punish microsoft because its competitors are
incompetent.


---peter




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

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

From: [e-mail]                            08-Nov-99 08:57:08
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 14:42:23
Subj: Re: Warp users running Be?

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <9D8mOJlxJN3blJw=r6Xs=[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 01:33:59 GMT, [e-mail] (Mike Trettel)
>wrote:
>
>>>I have Be 4.5 installed.
>>
>>Given that it's Yet Another Operating System, what is the real reason for
>>using it?  I ask because I'm curious enough to want to try it, yet I
>>really can't find a compelling reason to do so.  Far less applications
>>than Warp, much less hardware support, etc., and yet the idea of a clean
>>slate sounds very interesting.  Can you offer any positive reasons for
>>trying it, outside of curiousity?
>
>The main reason I tried it is curiosity, and the business of the clean
>slate.
>
>Installation was interesting:  ten minutes, from start to first boot
>up.  Boot up is the fastest I've seen.  It seems to be rock solid as
>far as stability is concerned.  If you're a programmer, you might be
>interested to know that Be does come with its own IDE and also a
>version of gcc.  It also has its own version of a bash terminal.  It
>comes with a utility to add Be to the Windows NT boot up menu, which
>is what I use.  You can also dual boot from Windows 95.98.  As far as
>hardware goes, I don't have anything exotic, so that wasn't a problem.
>
>You're certainly right about the lack of apps, although there do seem
>to be some on the horizon.  I guess for me, it's just an experiment,
>or part of a hobby.
>
>--
>Bill Pridgen
>--
>[e-mail]
>

How exactly did you determine that it is rock solid? Booting up and launching
a
couple of programs hardly seems like an extensive test.

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            08-Nov-99 09:01:04
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 14:42:23
Subj: Re: Warp users running Be?

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>Mirage Media wrote:
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many people here running Warp have
>> also started using Be? While at Warpstock Europe last month, I noticed
>> several people sporting Be t-shirts. Also, in the Be newsgroups, people
>> are constantly saying "well, in OS/2 we do it like this....
>
>Just out of curiosity, is there any compelling reason to try Be, other than
the
>"Gee-Whiz" factor?  Is there anything anyone currently running and happy with
>OS/2 can benefit by trying it?

I thought about it because of the talk of great multitasking, multithreading,
and C++ based programming API, but never got around to it. To me, the only to
tell if it is any good is to whole-heartedly install it and use it and I need
something more compelling than being able to run many video clips well.

>It's understandable if some of the more skiddish types have taken the
>opportunity presented by the latest wave of "OS/2 is dead"isms to explore
other
>alternatives, but why else would a happy OS/2 user make such a move?

On a  "friendlier" note, I don't think you have to worry much about
migrations.
From what I've seen here, everyone who wanted to leave OS/2 has and you more,
how shall we say, hardcore users...well if you can't be shaken by now, you
won't be by an predictions.

>- Marty
>



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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               08-Nov-99 16:28:06
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 14:42:23
Subj: Re: MS is a monopoly - but here is a legit questrion

From: [e-mail] (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn)

> [e-mail] (Mike Trettel) wrote:

> Unfortunately (for MS) there's little incentive for the DOJ to
> take any kind of half assed settlement offer-why should they?

It is worse because of M$ own making. Lobbying to reduce some
of the budgets of the DOJ will not have improved that willingness.

> Judge Jackson has made it quite clear that the DOJ will get pretty
> much whatever they want.  There's some soiled shorts over on the MS
> campus at the moment-they could have settled this for pennies on the
> dollar only a year ago.  Now due to arrogance and pride they're stuck
> in the mud with very little short term options.

And their options-paid staff will not like to see their declining
income also. They will blame the company-chairman for not
taking that offer to settle by essentially just putting Netscape
on the Windows disks also. Insiders say that that is the way
Wordperfect got wasted after it was sold to Novell. The stock
dropped and the old Novell staff blamed (rightly or not) WP's ac-
quisition and were not willing to work to realize marketleverage
by cooperating with the WP-staff to integrate and market the pro-
ducts. Besides the staff is leaving M$ anyway (as Joh Dvorak said
some weeks ago "Who wants to work for a loser?) and they had this
summer the story of problems to get developers as those are looking
to Java nowadays. M$ being a one-product company (Ballmer a few
years ago in a Dutch interview: "Everywhere I look into the future it is
Windows, Windows and Windows again") has a lot of jobs on the line.

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: [e-mail]                             08-Nov-99 15:33:02
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 14:42:23
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <802qdk$jp2$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
> > It's apparent opacity to you is merely a side effect of your own
> > reading comprehension problems.
>
> What alleged reading comprehension problems, Lucien?

Your repeated requests for clarification of the term "multi-level"
indicate a reading comprehension problem, given that the meaning I used
is clear.

> That's rather
> ironic, coming from someone who doesn't even realize the irrelevance
> of his own thesis and who can't comprehend the relevance of two
> simple tests.

Your "tests" demonstrate nothing relevant. They are merely nonsense
laden with invective, intended only to divert attention from the topic
at hand.

> > Thus, an independent comparison can be done.
>
> You're erroneously presupposing that your own meaning is clear.

Wrong. My meaning is clear.

>  I've
> told you that it is not clear to me,

That it is not clear to you is obvious, but that is merely a side
effect of your reading comprehension problem. The opacity is apparent
only to you and has nothing to do with the clarity of my remark.

> but rather than clarifying your
> meaning,

My meaning is already clear.

> you simply point me to someone else's meaning and claim that
> it's the same as yours, thus no independent comparison of meanings can
> be done by me.

Wrong. My meaning is clear and so is that of the authors in the
references I cited in the "costly mistakes" thread.
Thus, an independent comparison of meanings can be done.

> >> The underlying ambiguity of what, Lucien?
>
> > The underlying ambiguity WRT quantification; can't you read?
>
> I can't read what isn't there, Lucien.

That you cannot comprehend the statements is obvious.

> Your statement mentioned nothing about quantification.

Wrong. Our statements directly concern themselves with quantification.

Let's go over them again:

Here is your statement regarding the JDK sentence (emphasis mine):

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

Note the description of the ambiguity WRT quantification.

Here is my thesis statement again (emphasis mine):

The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
ambiguous WRT to quantification, [[[in the absence of peri-verbal
information.]]]

Note the description of the ambiguity WRT quantification.

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: [e-mail]                                     08-Nov-99 17:00:12
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 14:42:23
Subj: Re: Warp users running Be?

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>


"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
>
> I thought about it because of the talk of great multitasking,
multithreading,
> and C++ based programming API, but never got around to it. To me, the only
to
> tell if it is any good is to whole-heartedly install it and use it and I
need
> something more compelling than being able to run many video clips well.
>

> On a  "friendlier" note, I don't think you have to worry much about
migrations.
> From what I've seen here, everyone who wanted to leave OS/2 has and you
more,
> how shall we say, hardcore users...well if you can't be shaken by now, you
> won't be by an predictions.
>

I don't think any Be user actually sits around watching half a dozen
videos at one time. However, the very fact that one *can* while
simultaneously browsing the internet, downloading a file, sending email
and image editing (without any apparent strain or crashes) seems to
highlight it's stability, strength and versatility.
Anyway, I was not asking about anyone migrating to Be....I use use Warp
(I actually own 7 legal copies including several developer betas and am
waiting for Warp Server to arrive), Be, Solaris 7 and NeXT. I'm just
curious about what attracts Warp users to *also* run Be.

Corey
Mirage Media
Nuenen, The Netherlands

Fine Art Nudes Kyoto
http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/photos/gallery/C_SHADOW/index.html
Polaroid Transfer Art
http://www.frii.com/~uliasz/photoart/polaroid/t_gallery/corey.htm

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          08-Nov-99 11:20:02
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 14:42:23
Subj: Re: The Words of the Judge

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Mr. Reilly,

While I frequently disagree with Mr. Glatt's views concerning OS/2,
OS/2 users, and other other subjects, I believe in giving credit
where credit is due.  I have examined his software for OS/2 and
have a favorable impression of his OS/2 programming work.

I disagree with his opinions expressed in the post to which you
replied.  He attempts to use anecdotal evidence from his own
experience to prove a universal point.  The flaws in that method
are quite obvious.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

Lee Reilly wrote:
>
> Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> > >(William Sonna)
> > >" 46. IBM's inability to gain widespread developer support for its
> > >OS/2 Warp operating system illustrates how the massive Windows
> > >installed base makes it prohibitively costly for a rival operating
> > >system to attract enough developer support to challenge Windows.
> >
> > Baloney.
>
> Bullshit.
>
> > As an ex-OS/2 developer,
>
> You never developed anything of value or quality for
> OS/2.  You dabbled.  You were a lousy OS/2 developer
> because you weren't intelligent enough to understand
> OS/2.  You personally failed and to save face you blamed
> OS/2.  That's why you are still haunt these OS/2 newsgroups:
> you're still pissed off and angry that you were never able
> to 'grasp' the technical superiority of OS/2.
>
> Microsoft and those who support Microsoft's rickety
> software can no longer blame competitors for the failure
> of competing operating systems.  Judge Penfield has
> proven that.
>
> Your time in these newsgroups has long passed.
> Run to the newsgroups that support your failed
> monopoly and seek to bolster your ego there.  Here
> you are nothing but a ridiculous ass.  You will never
> be believed here.
>
> Lee Reilly

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

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

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          08-Nov-99 11:51:16
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 14:42:23
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, Marcelo L. Meira posted :

> Hobbyist wrote:
> >
> > On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, Joseph posted :
> >
> > <snip>
> > > The list of people to attack is growing exponentially.  The Judge, the
DOJ, IBM,
> > > LINUX, APPLE ...   Watching a cult crumble is enjoyable.
> >
> > What a laughable thing to say, if I'm getting your meaning correctly.
> > What cult is that??
>
> Probably the cult of those who don't see the obvious. Truths are many,
> but reality is only one.
>
> It's indeed very entertaining to see the black list growing so fast

What does someone using a MS OS have to do with them agreeing with
MS's business practices? Most users couldn't really care less or get
emotional and obsessive about it. It's on these grounds that I ask
what cult?

I use NT. I think there are indeed grounds for a trial. Can you
reconcile the two positions?

--
-=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: [e-mail]                               09-Nov-99 17:13:00
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 15:59:29
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: [e-mail] (Esther Schindler)

David,

IBM was pressured. That was obvious at the time; I didn't need to read
a transcript to know about it, because my IBM sources made it evident
back then.

IBM was *also* incredibly stupid.

And MGI was screwed by IBM in the contract. I know what IBM originally
promised MGI in a 40-odd-page contract and then what IBM did instead.
I named the individual responsible, and it wasn't his first time to
shoot an OS/2 ISV.

Just because your enemy is a bad guy doesn't mean that your own people
are angels.

--Esther

On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 22:00:31, "David T. Johnson"
<[e-mail]> wrote:
| > On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:55:55, Mirage Media <[e-mail]> wrote:
| >
| > | Now we know why MGI released a demo of their photo software on the Warp
| > | applications sampler disk and never followed through with an actual
| > | working product. Bastards.
| >
| > No, it was because IBM screwed MGI on the contract. You can lay that
| > one at the feet of Wally Casey.

| Esther, you cling to this "IBM was stupid and rotten" theory and
| completely ignore the possibility that IBM was pressured by Microsoft to
| back away from OS/2 or else.  Not only is this a possibility, it is now
| a FINDING OF FACT in a federal court case by a federal judge.  You
| apparently completely missed several days of courtroom testimony by IBM
| executives last summer.  You should find a transcript and read it.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     09-Nov-99 18:18:07
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 15:59:29
Subj: Re: "All bets are off regarding Windows" - IBM

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>

Agreed. But considering how more and more homeusers are setting up home
networks and how IBM has pulled out of the retail PC business, as I
said, things *are* changing.....anyway, cdrom.com ran for years using a
server with a single 200mhz Pentium Pro. Let's face it, in another 18
months, it'll probably be cheaper to buy and install a home network
(with dumb terminals) than it is to buy a decent PC right now.

Corey
Mirage Media
Nuenen, The Netherlands

Fine Art Nudes Kyoto
http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/photos/gallery/C_SHADOW/index.html
Polaroid Transfer Art
http://www.frii.com/~uliasz/photoart/polaroid/t_gallery/corey.htm


Aaron Kuperman wrote:
>
> The article appears to be describing an updated version of a "dumb
> terminal". That isn't new. It doesn't sound like a consumer or small
> business item, and unlike a PC, it won't run without its server. If it is
> nice and cheap (e.g. only a few hundered) it might do well, or if one
> finds a way to let current PCs (Pentium 300+ with 64 Meg) be servers to
> these glorified terminals. Since IBM appears to prefer to sell servers to
> selling PCs, it is logical that they should try to sell dumb terminals
> that require servers.  [posted on lunch time,not company time]
>

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               09-Nov-99 17:19:06
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 15:59:29
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: [e-mail] (Esther Schindler)

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:48:19, Mirage Media <[e-mail]> wrote:
| Thanks for the info Esther, but in Taiwan, I saw how MS dealt with
| hardware manufacturers first hand. The *only* company that I know of
| that still ships products with both OS/2 drivers and a big "OS/2" logo
| on the box is BTC (http://www,btc.com.tw). The last cdrom drive I bought
| was a BTC specifically because of their support for OS/2. The reason is
| personal, BTC executives "kiss no ass".

I've seen several hardware boxes, recently, that say OS/2 right on the
box, and more that have the OS/2 drivers on the disk. What you say may
be true in Taiwan but it's not necessarily so elsewhere.

| Going back to MGI....regardless of any contracts between IBM and MGI,
| what actually prevented MGI from releasing the product?

Months and months wasted trying to get the Lotus-devised
Windows-to-OS/2 API sets to work. The same APIs that didn't work for
several years and thus prevented SmartSuite from shipping for eons...
but Lotus and IBM could afford to subsidize such development, and a
small company could not.

And bitterness because IBM had screwed them.

When your business partner treats you poorly and supplies tools that
don't work, which steal people resources from the projects that _do_
bring in money, in the short-term... how enthusiastic can you be? Even
if customers are beating down your door? (Which I don't believe was
true, in this case.)

--Esther

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                 09-Nov-99 17:57:23
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 15:59:29
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: Curtis Bass <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:

-- snip --

> 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.

That is correct. In the quote above, Mike said, "I was able to read the
file with WinZip." That yo would claim that he was referring to
classes.zip is illogical, for he would have no earthly reason to make
that claim of a ZIP file, Dave.

IOW, it is axiomatic that classes.zip, being a zip file, could be read
by WinZip. But the contention is over whether JAVAINUF.EXE could be read
in a non-OS/2 environment. Ergo, the logical deduction is that Mike was
referring to JAVAINUF.EXE when he said, "I was able to read the file
with WinZip."

> > 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?

Why indeed? Yet you keep doing so . . . even after reposting it over and
over again.

Let's have yet another look:

Timbol: I already have, Dave.  I was able to read the file with WinZip.
Timbol: classes.zip is 9,727,300 bytes uncompressed, compressed at 57%
Timbol: so the packed size is 4,189,979 bytes.  The CRC is d7312638.

The above information can only be obtained from successfully reading
JAVAINUF.EXE.  Reading classes.zip would not yield any of the above
info.

Timbol: The first file in classes.zip (alphabetically) is
Timbol: AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is
ZipOutputStream.class.

Mike ***SUBSEQUENTLY*** reads classes.zip, presumably with WinZip, in
order to obtain the information presented above. This proves that Mike
was able to extract the classes.zip file from JAVAINUF.EXE without
running JAVAINUF.EXE on OS/2, thereby refuting Tholen's claim that one
had to run OS/2 in order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.

Because of this, plus Tholen's blatant gaff over the "chronology," he
should be quite embarrassed at this point, but frankly, I don't think he
has enough sense to even know embarrassment.

I resign this thread, not because I have "lost" (on the contrary) but
because even I get bored of arguing with an insane person after a while.


Curtis

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

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

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          09-Nov-99 12:54:00
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 15:59:29
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, William V. Campbell Jr. posted :

> in article [e-mail], David H. McCoy at
> [e-mail] wrote on 11/8/99 5:44 PM:
>
> > Indeed. I guess people some people just haven't grown enough to see an OS
has
> > a
> > tool instead of a religion.
>
> Sshhh!  Quiet as I kneel before my Mac.

ROTFL!!

--
-=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: [e-mail]                  09-Nov-99 17:36:16
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 15:59:29
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: "Lennart Gahm" <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 12:59:31 -0500, Mirage Media wrote:
>Jeff Glatt wrote:
>> About the only thing "higher" in the spec is the price, because
>> Europeans tend to get less bang for the buck than USA consumers. We
>> have a lot of demand for technology over here. And we have a LOT of
>> supply -- a cutthroat business here -- that's how insatiable is the
>> USA's appetite for computer technology. Europe doesn't even compare.
>>
>> Of course, one thing that Scandanavia has is exorbitant inflation
>> driving up the price of even the cheap, older technology that USA
>> firms dump over there.
>
>Haven't EVER been over here, have you?

To Jeff: The inflation in all scandinavian countries is about 1-3%.
What inflation do you live under?
I am from Sweden and our biggest problems are high taxes. But that has
unfortunately not stopped Sweden from becoming one of the worlds most
Windowised countries. The average technical level is probely equally to US.
Sweden has next most celluarphone per capita, only Finland has more.
Finland is another scandinavian country. The next thing on celluarphones
are WAP, mostly developed in scandinavia.
We only lack a BIG OS/2 population.

Lennart Gahm, Sweden



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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  09-Nov-99 12:53:08
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 15:59:29
Subj: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451492.345678274898^-2390694

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Something claiming to be a <[e-mail]> unfortunately
tholened:

Well, unfortunately Tholen is back to wasting more bandwidth, having
expanded his invective and illogic into countless more articles today.   Of
course, by responding, he effectively admitted that *his* postings are
"baby-talk tripe", because and thus we wish that he would not respond with
such postings.  He's even trying that tired old "astrologer" line, which has
never had any effect on me here and only serves to make Tholen
look like a fool.  Well, anyway, here's a summary of all that Tholen has
posted of any value whatsoever in the last day or so:

{Nichts, nada, the null set}

There you have it!  You can consider yourself caught up on Tholen-blabber!


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

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

From: [e-mail]                            09-Nov-99 17:58:29
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 15:59:29
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Steve Drewell <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, Bob Germer wrote:

ε So, tell me Steve, just how the US ripped off the Europeans when it comes
ε to supersonic flight.

The British were ahead of struggling US scientists in the resarch of
supersonic aircraft when their funding started to dry up. Seeking funding
from the USA, the US agreed funding as long as the British showed them
what they had. The British divulged their research as agreed, but when it
came to delivering the funds as per their agreement, the US told the
British to sod off. That is what I was referring to in my earlier message.
When the first supersonic plane was built by the US, it even looked
identical to the British design, apart from the colour.

Steve

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Western Geophysical, Houston, TX (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             09-Nov-99 10:10:18
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 15:59:29
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Dennis Peterson wrote:
>
> "David T. Johnson" wrote:
> >
> > Esther Schindler wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 23:55:55, Mirage Media <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > | Now we know why MGI released a demo of their photo software on the
Warp
> > > | applications sampler disk and never followed through with an actual
> > > | working product. Bastards.
> > >
> > > No, it was because IBM screwed MGI on the contract. You can lay that
> > > one at the feet of Wally Casey.
> > >
> >
> > Esther, you cling to this "IBM was stupid and rotten" theory and
> > completely ignore the possibility that IBM was pressured by Microsoft to
> > back away from OS/2 or else.  Not only is this a possibility, it is now
> > a FINDING OF FACT in a federal court case by a federal judge.
>
> I'm a big OS/2 advocate, but this is a reach. There is no evidence to
> support the notion that this project was the direct victim of MS. Let's
> leave the witch hunts for the screwballs.

You are not clear about which "project" you are referring to but IBM
was, without question, (at least to those who bother to read) the victim
of illegal pressure by Microsoft.  That is why Judge Jackson found as he
did.  Now, you can call this a witch hunt for screwballs if it makes you
feel better but the findings of fact end the debate, at least from a
legal point of view.

>
> > You apparently completely missed several days of courtroom testimony by
IBM
> > executives last summer.  You should find a transcript and read it.
> >
> > Please reread Judge Jackson's Finding of Fact:
> >
> > Judge Jackson's Second Finding Of Fact: 'It is Microsoft's corporate
> > practice to pressure other firms to halt software development that
> > either shows the potential to weaken the applications barrier to entry
> > or competes directly with Microsoft's most cherished sofware products.'
> >
> > Is there some reason why you don't think that IBM was one of these
> > "other firms?"
>
> Is there any evidence to suggest they were, at least within the scope of
> this thread?

Apparently, you also missed several days of riveting testimony by IBM
executives.  I suggest you go back and read the transcripts.


>
> >  IBM was not on a crusade to fight injustice.  They were
> > businessmen.  Microsoft had them in a headlock and there was nothing for
> > them to do but capitulate.  And they did.  Just like most other firms.
> > Just like those companies who were forced to sell out to Standard Oil 90
> > years ago.  Netscape had no choice but to fight to the end because
> > Microsoft was after their entire business, not just a part of it.  But
> > Netscape still lost in the end.
>
> Netscape sold for billions more than they were worth - not a bad deal in
> my book, but still this has nothing to do with the original suggestion
> you've put forward about MGI.

I did not put forward any suggestion about MGI.  I was commenting
generally on Esther's  statements about IBM's actions.  I think Netscape
sold for about $4 billion.  This is a lot but it is nothing compared
with what they might have become and what they might have produced for
consumers.  Obviously, you wouldn't have been willing to pay $4
billion.  Maybe $14.95?


>
> I'm not defending MS - I and my household remain a 100% MS-free zone,
> but you're going a bit overboard. Stick to the facts and leave the
> stargazing to the professionals and the whackos.
>

So then you are willing to admit that Microsoft illegally pressured
other companies to do their bidding?  Microsoft still will not admit
this.  But you do?  I have tried to stick to the facts:  the lawsuit,
the pleadings, the transcripts, and now the FINDINGS OF FACT by a
federal judge.  Do you know what findings of fact are?  The judge (or
jury, depending) listen to the evidence and make a determination as to
who is telling the truth and who is lying and he determines what REALLY
happened.  Please reread Judge Jackson's FINDINGS OF FACT.  These are
not arguments, they are gavel-dropped determinations.

I haven't you seen you mention any facts here, just namecalling.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                 09-Nov-99 18:55:24
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 15:59:29
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <[e-mail]>

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 text.

Good for you, Dave.

> Curtis Bass writes:
>
> > Regardless of whose file it was based on, the claim was erroneous.
>
> How does that make your copy of the file relevant, Curtis?
>
> > My copy proves the error of the claim.
>
> My claim wasn't based on your copy of the file, Curtis, thus your copy
> of the file is indeed irrelevant to my claim.

Typical circular evasiveness on Dave's part.

Are you listening, Karel?  Bennie?  Still astounded by Dave's, uh,
"logic?"

> > "Irrelevant" to your erroneous claim, perhaps, but not to the disproof
> > thereof.
>
> So, you admit that your copy of the file is irrelevant.

Uh, I quoted the word "irrelevant," Dave, which is to say, the word had
no real meaning. Were it an admission, the word "irrelevant" would not
have been quoted.

> > "Logical" perhaps, but erroneous, nonetheless. I never said that your
> > claim was "illogical," Dave.
>
> You did call me "inept", Curtis, but you've yet to identify anything
> I did that is "inept".

On the contrary, but, par for the course, you ignored it.

<SARCASM> Color me surprised </SARCASM>

-- snip --

> > Which is to say, what you called unnecessary was the need to run the
> > JAVAINUF.EXE self-extraction . . .
>
> So why did you infer otherwise, Curtis?

I didn't. You did.

> > So you naturally jumped to the erroneous comclusion that that was the
> > *ONLY* way to make the extraction.
>
> 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?
>
> > Yes, Dave, that is quite "logical."  (ROTFLMAO!)
>
> To quote yourself from a couple dozen lines above:
>
> CB] "Logical" perhaps, but erroneous, nonetheless. I never said that your
> CB] claim was "illogical," Dave.

Point number one: As above with the word "irrelevant," the word
"logical" is quoted, because it has no real meaning.

Point number two: Okay, I stand corrected:  I assumed logic on your
part, but was later shown to be wrong in said assumption. Therefore, I
recant my earlier assumption.

> Do make up your mind, Curtis.

Just did. Feel better, now?

-- snip --

> > In any case, he is wrong.
>
> He is not "inept", as you claimed, Curtis.

So you finally admit that you were wrong.

Finally.

-- snip --


Curtis

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

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

From: [e-mail]                             09-Nov-99 11:00:11
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 15:59:29
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>


Kim Cheung wrote:
>
> On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 17:00:31 -0500, David T. Johnson wrote:
>
> >IBM was not on a crusade to fight injustice.  They were
> >businessmen.
>
> You mean like fighting for their right to loose a bil a year through the PC
> Company?
>
> Let see.   If IBM refused to sign on the line with Win95, they would have
> lost 80% of the PC hardware market since 95.   That means they would have
> lost 80% of -4 billion - or lost -3.2 billion.


Good point.  But I doubt that IBM planned on losing all of that money.
Another point that I have not seen mentioned is that the price that OEMs
pay for Windows varies widely.  The antitrust trial testimony on these
prices was done in secret so we do not know what the numbers were.  BUT,
if the software license is significant part of the total system margin,
then a favorable pricing structure by Microsoft might help a Dell or a
Gateway at the expense of an IBM or a Compaq.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          09-Nov-99 15:48:20
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 20:25:14
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Curtis Bass wrote:
>
> 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 text.
>
> Good for you, Dave.
>
> > Curtis Bass writes:
> >
> > > Regardless of whose file it was based on, the claim was erroneous.
> >
> > How does that make your copy of the file relevant, Curtis?
> >
> > > My copy proves the error of the claim.
> >
> > My claim wasn't based on your copy of the file, Curtis, thus your copy
> > of the file is indeed irrelevant to my claim.
>
> Typical circular evasiveness on Dave's part.
>
> Are you listening, Karel?  Bennie?  Still astounded by Dave's, uh,
> "logic?"

I've read some of this, but not all.  Mainly, my contributions have dealt
with communication failures due to protocol incompatibilities.  I try to
ignore the noise in the signal.  Jeff Glatt is the one responsible for
the "noise" you're quoting here.  I've never said or implied that I am
astounded by anyone's logic who has posted in comp.os.os2.advocacy.  That
includes you, Dave Tholen, and myself.

Since you, Marty, and Dave have invested so many words in this hot topic,
I'd be interested in reading a post from each of you that summarizes the
points each has made.  Individually, that is.  No references to anyone
else or anyone else's words.  What exactly is the technical information
that a reader should know that so many words have been spilled over?

In other words, what truths have you tried to communicate that will
enrich the reader?  My usage of "truths" does not include personal
observations about any other participant in the thread.

Who is here to be argumentative and combative?  Who is here looking for
someone to browbeat with superior intelligence?

Who is here to share knowledge and perspective?

From all I have read in this thread, I can determine that according to
some, Java 1.1.8 from IBM includes some features of Java 1.2, but these
are not activated by default.  Also, Netscape Communicator for OS/2
v4.61 sometimes does not download complete files.  That a file called
JAVAINUF.EXE, an OS/2 executable, has an imbedded runt DOS program whose
sole raison d'etre is to inform the hapless DOS user that the real program
only works in OS/2.  The text of that message, plus other text can be
viewed without running the program using various utilities.  I also know
that JAVAINUF.EXE contains an archive that can be extracted by running the
self-extraction portion of JAVAINUF.EXE or by using some other extraction
utility that supports the archive format used in creating JAVAINUF.EXE.
Finally, I can determine that what I've said about JAVAINUF.EXE applies
fully to a complete copy of same and only partially to an incomplete copy
of same.

> -- snip --

Bennie Nelson

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          09-Nov-99 21:23:13
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 20:25:14
Subj: Re: The Words of the Judge

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Bennie Nelson
>I notice that Jeff felt that he should remove the compliment
>I gave to him in my first post in this thread.

I removed it because it was irrelevant to the discussion. Furthermore,
I didn't come into the newsgroup fishing for compliments. That's not
what the newsgroup is about.

I'll leave the self-promotion to people like Tholen.

>> >Bennie Nelson
>> >He attempts to use anecdotal evidence from his own
>> >experience to prove a universal point.
>>
>> You mean how like Tholen attempts to use anecdotal evidence from his
>> own experience to totally dismiss the points of anyone who mentions
>> that they've had a problem with OS/2?
>>
>> But of course, what you "obviously" fail to see is that I'm *hardly*
>> the only OS/2 developer who feels that IBM and OS/2 developers were a
>> bad match due to the fact that IBM is not a company that should be
>> selling a niche market item, nor dealing with anyone other than
>> Fortune 500 companies placing large orders for big ticket IBM
>> products. As I pointed out before (and you've failed to grasp because
>> you're only an enduser who *thinks* that he knows what is on the minds
>> of OS/2 developers who dealt with IBM), this is a prevalent view among
>> ex-OS/2 developers. You should actually talk to some of them, and read
>> posts that they written on the subject, so you'll learn about this.

>No, Jeff.  You missed my point.  Let me give a reverse example to try
>and clarify what I said:

>If I state that my experience with OS/2 has been very good and that
>ALL PC users should therefore use OS/2, you would reject that point.

No, *you* miss the point. I'm telling you that "my experience" as a
developer who had to deal with IBM, and the conclusions that I've
drawn from that about OS/2 and IBM, are *not* exclusive to me. In
fact, they are very prevalent views among ex-OS/2 developers. *Talk*
to some ex-OS/2 developers. Actually *LISTEN* to what they're saying
instead of telling them what *you* believe they should be thinking
about IBM and OS/2, and you'll see that your assumptions about them
are incorrect (much like the judge, who apparently didn't even hear
from any real OS/2 developers, such as Brad Wardell, doesn't know why
ex-OS/2 developers left OS/2).

>In fact, my OS/2 experience has been very, very good, and I am quite
>happy with using the OS for my business computing needs.

You're not an OS/2 developer. You didn't have to deal with IBM's
"support" for such people, and deal with the issues that they did.
Your experience is irrrelevant to the reasons why people no longer
develop for OS/2.

>I do not
>believe that my experience should be extrapolated to apply to all
>other PC users, to most PC users, or even to many PC users.

More to the point, your experience has no relevancy to why developers
left OS/2. Your views about OS/2 and IBM do not even *consider* the
perspectives of OS/2 developers. In fact, I don't believe that you
have even met and talked to any OS/2 developers. You certainly haven't
read their posts on the internet, for example, those posts to which I
alluded from people like Wardell, Lennane, and other "major" ex-OS/2
developers.

>I don't pretend to have that much knowledge.

Which is good because you apparently have no idea why OS/2 developers
left OS/2.

>That is the error I believe
>you made: you overreached in applying your points.

My points are quite simply what many other OS/2 developers have openly
stated about IBM and OS/2 and their troubles with both.

>That said, I'd like to add that much of what you've said IN THIS
>THREAD has been right on the mark.  I do not agree with all of what
>you've said, but I do agree that IBM, big lumbering elephant that
>it is, made decisions that squashed some mice (small OS/2 ISVs) in
>the OS/2 field.

And yet, none of this was even mentioned in the judge's "finding of
fact", because the judge was never even informed about any of these
things, and never even heard from the developers about whose
intentions and experiences he drew erroneous conclusions.

>However, Microsoft has crushed many businesses in its path to success.
>Remember Stacker?

Stacker is not an ex-OS/2 developer who was allegedly "forced" to
abandon OS/2 because of some supposed "MS monopoly". In fact, Stacker
has no relevence to the issues that OS/2 developers faced.

>How many vendors of DOS and Windows utilities have
>been swallowed whole by the Redmond giant?

Vendors of DOS and Windows utilities are not ex-OS/2 developers who
were allegedly "forced" to abandon OS/2 because of some supposed "MS
monopoly". In fact, those developers have no relevence to the issues
that OS/2 developers faced.

>A monopoly is not allowed to wield its power to destroy
>competitors in the way MS has done.

The judge was flat out incorrect in his assumptions about why
developers abandoned products like OS/2. That's because he never heard
from developers that actually invested in it, and then abandoned the
platform (well, other than companies that never really did consider it
a significant product, and merely paid it cheap lip service... such as
IBM... or Netscape who never even developed anything for OS/2 until
years later when IBM tossed a floundering company a few bucks to do
so. These were not OS/2 developers. These were primarily Windows
developers who had incidental, lackluster, begrudging support for
OS/2).

>I only object to the universalist aspect of your point.

That's because you are not aware of, and truly underestimate, the
extent to which ex-OS/2 developers believe that IBM killed OS/2.

>I know
>that what you described occurred all too often (once is too much in my
>estimation).  IBM should not have made the about face it did.  They
>had a good start in supporting games, etc, but it needed a lot of
>work.  I remember when the Joystick driver came out.  I believe two
>guys coded that, and IBM eventually supported for it.  Then the decision
>came, (I guess someone remembered the "B" means Business) and OS/2 was
>no longer a gaming platform.

You appear to responding to someone else's points. I never said
anything about games at all in my posts.

>And MMOS2 needs a lot of work.  It was a good start, though.

I never said anything about MMOS2 either. Maybe the problem is that
you're not sure who is saying what in this thread? In that case, you
should reserve your judgments about who is "wrong" until such time as
you verify who has said what.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          09-Nov-99 21:32:16
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 20:25:15
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Thomas Galley
>European every-day realities one of which is language.

I can understand a few languages myself.

That's totally irrelevant to my points though, as is the remainder of
your post which attacks a strawman of your own choosing, not anything
in particular that I've said.

Perhaps if you identified and addressed specific points, such as I'm
doing here, you'd refrain from creating your own positions to argue
against.

>could you give me any reason
>why a french or german user does not have the right to get a product and
>a manual in his/her native language

I never said that a french user doesn't have the right to get a
product and manual in his native language. I merely point out that,
under current law, he doesn't have the right to get a product and
manual NOT in his native language.

I couldn't sell him something even if he WANTED it.... well, not
legally anyway.

>your statement about piracy. I am aware of the
>fact that there are countries in which piracy is an issue, but from
>there to place all of Europe in one basket goes very far.

Not everyone who uses a computer uses pirated software. My statements
obviously weren't absolute. I presumed that a reader (with
intelligence, not like Tholen, mind you) would figure that out. I was
clearly speaking in general.

In general, there is more software piracy in the European market,
regardless of whether you yourself purchase all software you use.
Developers know this.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               09-Nov-99 21:27:25
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 20:25:15
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: Curtis Bass <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Curtis Bass writes:

-- snip --

> > Do try to keep up,
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who hasn't answered my question:
>
> DT] Are you saying that you can make the sort of personal attacks
> DT] I reproduced and still call them "civil"?

If you can answer a question with a question, then so can I, which I did
(see previous post).

-- snip --

> Yet another person who doesn't understand the difference between
> "implication" and "inference".

I understand the difference just fine; I simply inferred that which is
implied by your behavior.

> Just because you inferred something doesn't mean I implied it, Curtis.

In the universal sense, this may be true, depending on what you mean by
"I implied it."  I am not saying that *YOU* deliberately *implied*
anything by any specific statement you made, Dave, only that your
overall behavior over the alleged invective of others implies something.

-- snip --

> The hypocrisy of using invective, denying it, and then calling something
> "invective" that you had recently declared as not being invective.

Where have I allegedly used "invective," Dave?


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Organized? ME?!!? (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          09-Nov-99 21:46:26
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 20:25:15
Subj: Re: "All bets are off regarding Windows" - IBM

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Aaron Kuperman
>The article appears to be describing an updated version of a "dumb
>terminal". That isn't new. It doesn't sound like a consumer or small
>business item, and unlike a PC, it won't run without its server. If it is
>nice and cheap (e.g. only a few hundered) it might do well, or if one
>finds a way to let current PCs (Pentium 300+ with 64 Meg) be servers to
>these glorified terminals. Since IBM appears to prefer to sell servers to
>selling PCs, it is logical that they should try to sell dumb terminals
>that require servers.  [posted on lunch time,not company time]

Absolutely. 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.

As soon as IBM can get rid of these pesky PCs, then it can get back to
the business of selling proprietary IBM hardware, and this time it
won't have its proprietary product circumvented by independent
personal computer manufacturers like how Microchannel and its
licensing fees were trounced by independent PC manufacturers

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                    09-Nov-99 22:17:22
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 20:25:15
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (Frank Kirk)

On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 13:48:07, "Daniel Johnson"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>Those OSes were often well suited for some purpose or other, but not
for the purpose Windows  is put to.

    What might that be?

FWK
>

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            09-Nov-99 18:54:20
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 21:17:16
Subj: Re: Warp users running Be?

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>
>
>"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>>
>>
>> Agreed. But if one gets this with one's current OS, with more hardware and
>> application support, what is the incentive to move?
>>
>
>Other than yourself, who said anything about moving? Personally, I use
>(and try) different OSes both for the learning experience and for
>business reasons. It's rather difficult to market hardware if you don't
>know what OSes will run on it.
>
>Corey
>Mirage Media
>Nuenen, The Netherlands
>
>Fine Art Nudes Kyoto
>http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/photos/gallery/C_SHADOW/index.html
>Polaroid Transfer Art
>http://www.frii.com/~uliasz/photoart/polaroid/t_gallery/corey.htm
>

Other than me, Marty. Furthermore, it is not difficult to market hardware if
it
runs on Windows. Few people care if it will run in BeOS.  Finally, I'm all for

learning. You cannot be a good programmer without learning, but I'm not for
wasting my time. The BeOS needs to be compelling. For example, time spent
learning the BeOS API is time taking away from learning say COM.

COM will earn you a living. The BeOS is in little demand.

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            09-Nov-99 18:58:13
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 21:17:16
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] says...
>
>All I can say is that you've got one huge chip on your shoulder regarding
>Europeans and their technology. Maybe you should get out more.
>
>Cheers,
>Steve
>
>Western Geophysical, Bedford, UK
>Tel: [phone]
>Fax: [phone]
>

Face it. The USA leads the world in most technological categories. That's just

the way it is. Who do you think invented the Internet?

Hint...it wasn't the UK.

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            09-Nov-99 19:00:08
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 21:17:16
Subj: Re: "All bets are off regarding Windows" - IBM

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>Read it and weep. The times they are a'changing.
>
>http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-1431968.html
>
>Corey
>Mirage Media
>Nuenen, The Netherlands
>
>Fine Art Nudes Kyoto
>http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/photos/gallery/C_SHADOW/index.html
>Polaroid Transfer Art
>http://www.frii.com/~uliasz/photoart/polaroid/t_gallery/corey.htm
>

Says IBM as the standardize on Windows 2000.

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            09-Nov-99 17:01:02
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 21:17:16
Subj: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: "Vincent P. LaBella" <[e-mail]>

> this is boring but please read and add flames

Hello

        I was a long time OS/2 user, since 2.0 (pre service pack) and I
just recently moved to NT.  I feel a need to share my experiences with
OS/2 and why I liked it and why I'm not using it anymore.  Maybe some of
you have gone through this and can reminisce. Maybe some of you are going
through the same thing right now.  Maybe there are some of you who are
still die hard users and holding on to OS/2 for dear life.  No matter what
your current psychological state regarding OS/2 is please read my long and
boring story as I cast it out into the digital void.  This process will
help me cleanse my soul if nothing else.

        I started using computers around 1984.  my first introduction to
an operating system (if you want to call it that) was DOS 2.1 and ever
since I've been a command line junky, even though DOS's default command
line capabilities were poor at best.  I learned to program in BASIC, then
Pascal and then C all on an 8088 PC with a green screen and a 30 MB hard
drive.  As I entered college I got out of the PC scene all together and
studied engineering and physics.  The minimal programming I did was in
FORTRAN on a VAX (yes even in 1990).

As I ended my undergraduate career I bought a PC ~1992 (486-50 w 16MB ram)
and I wanted a real OS.  I had never used windows but I heard that it had
lots of problems and was basically DOS with some fancy graphics.  So I saw
an add by IBM and bought OS/2 2.0 for $50 in June of 1992.

        This point is amazing now that I think of it. I mean, with
        all of IBM's ineffective marketing they managed to sell
        OS/2 to me with an add in a magazine and I didn't know
        much about computers.

However, my days of programming on a DOS box made me drool for crash
proofing and multitasking, two of OS/2's streangths. I got OS/2 installed
and It worked rather well.  A lot of hard drive churning but nevertheless
it basically did what I wanted.  It ran my DOS C compiler and quick basic
stuff just fine in separate windows and If one thing crashed the other
ones kept on running.  I bought 2.1 the day after it came out, directly
from IBM I think I payed $99.00 for it and there was a rebate too I think.
Anyway, I was overjoyed.  2.1 was fast and ran windows stuff superbly.

        I went on to grad school in 94 and got introduced to the Internet
(which was basically email and FTP sites at that time the web was just
beginning)  I subscribed to the OS/2 discussion list and I enjoyed ranting
and raving about OS/2 to all the other users.  I think at this point is
when I started to become a die-hard OS/2 user.  I became aware of M$ and
there attempts with NT to dethrone OS/2 as the most popular 32-bit OS in
the world.  I also became aware of M$ monopolizing grip on the PC market.
I mean if I wanted to buy a PC I couldn't get OS/2 pre-loaded.  Why not?

        I think 92-95 were the hey-days of the OS wars.  People, mostly
zealots would argue about APPS and drivers and installed base/pre-loads
blah blah blah.  At this time I discovered all the great OS/2 shareware
available over the Internet.  In addition, I became aware of the free
software foundation and the GCC compiler which Eberhard Mattes had ported
to OS/2.  So I quickly downloaded it and taught my self how to program in
C++ and build GUI's with OS/2's Presentation manager (what a klunky name).

        In grad school I majored in physics and used a scanning tunneling
microscope (STM) to image atoms on the surfaces of single crystals.  These
instruments were home made and needed lots of software.  So I wrote it all
for OS/2. What better platform could you ask for, it was stable and
multitasked and had a GUI.  Most grad students were stuck using klunky
command line programs for DOS.  Not me! I wanted real time imaging
capabilities and mouse control and I did it all for free with GCC and emx!

        As grad school wore on and the Internet exploded.  OS/2's
popularity started to wain.  However I didn't want to reprogram anything
or reinstall a new OS.  All I wanted to do was graduate and get my degree,
which I did in 98. So I continued to use OS/2.  However, I knew it was
doomed and I tried to keep my stuff as platform independent as possible.
The majority of the code was written in C/C++ and my thesis and papers
were written in TeX.

Then I started my new job and I really didn't want to program anymore. I
mean, I just wanted to use a computer to get something done like analyze
some data or write a paper or check email, the web or whatever.  It was at
this point I came to the realization that maybe some of you have already
come to.  If not you'll be there soon

        "WHO THE F*** CARES WHAT OS YOU USE"

Yes, who cares what it takes to get the job done as long as it gets done.
So use the simplest easiest default OS that comes with your computer and
allows you to do all this and

    guess what all you OS/2-ers out there

            THAT MEANS WINDOWS!

I know some of you are thinking why not use OS/2? However, it takes time
and effort to put OS/2 on a computer, and it doesn't do anything
special that NT doesn't do.  In fact NT does more and has more software
available for it.  I mean on a daily basis the GCC compiler is updated and
NT versions are ported as well.  This does not happen on OS/2 I think the
GCC that is available for OS/2 is two years behind the times.  All
programming libraries out there have NT ports and OS/2 ports that are
there are either behind or buggy.

I'm sorry OS/2 but I have to part with you.  You are dead. Lost and gone
in a world wide web that has forgotten you.  The ezine is dead edm/2 is
dead there is a boring supersite but who cares and oh yes warpstock - that
is all I want to do, go to another boring conference.

In fact, with the way the computer industry is today the OS won't matter
anymore either.  It seems the only thing that matters anymore is the Web
and online trading.  What the F** does this have to do with an OS
anymore?

    Soon there will we wrist-watches that surf the web.
        What are we going to do?
            Try and put OS/2 on those wrist-watches?

    get real.
            the OS is dead

get with the times OS/2-ers

        Leave OS/2

                Its not that bad over-here in NT land.

            Its not as bad as you might think.

        It wont hurt.

    Its painless.

                Come join us.

            There are lots of drivers.

    Lots of software.

                Lots of share-ware.

    We are nice people.

            We wont bite.

                -promise

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                   09-Nov-99 18:50:19
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 21:17:16
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Jerry Rowe" <[e-mail]>

On 7 Nov 1999 20:09:43 GMT, [e-mail] wrote:

>Nice post. I agree. Nothing good can come from dwelling on the past.
Realistically
>each of the 19 states and the Federal government are not going to settle for
less
>than 1 billion each. This is based on the tobacco case. So Microsoft will
have to
>pay at least 20 billion. Then they will have to have classes on antitrust for
all

Well, according to today's Infoworld article, you [whoever made this
statement] are wrong.
The are not interested in fines. They are interested in fixing the monopoly
problem.
Kudos for them.

=====
http://www.infoworld.com/cgi-bin/displayStory.pl?99118.enmictroub.htm

Legal scholars opine that Microsoft faces 'deep trouble'

  By Nancy Weil
  InfoWorld Electric
  Posted at 4:02 PM PT, Nov 8, 1999

With weeks, if not months, to go before a U.S.  federal judge rules on
whether Microsoft used its monopoly status to violate antitrust law, legal
scholars believe that the company faces severe repercussions, including the
possibility of a court-ordered break-up into separate entities.

It is not illegal to be a monopolist in the United States.  However, it is
against the law to use monopoly status in ways that harm consumers.

Although U.S.  District Court Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson must still
determine if Microsoft is guilty of such misuse of its monopoly power, his
harshly worded 207-page findings of fact Friday leaves little doubt where he
is headed in the minds of some who have followed the U.S.  government's
antitrust case against the software maker.


  -=-         -=-        -=-       -=-        -=-       -=-       -=-     -=-
Jerry L. Rowe - Certified OS/2 Engineer V 2.1,3,4
Certified OS/2 Lan Server/Warp Server Administrator/Engineer
jerry.rowe@{delete.this}usa.net - http://www.iquest.net/~jlrowe
Team OS/2 - Warping the Internet
  -=-         -=-        -=-       -=-        -=-       -=-       -=-     -=-
Is Microsoft a Tiger?

There once was a lady from Niger
Who smiled as she rode on a Tiger
They returned from the ride
With the lady inside
And the smile on the face of the Tiger.



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

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

From: [e-mail]                              10-Nov-99 00:01:17
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 21:17:16
Subj: JAVA SERVLET AND APPLET JOBS IN THE BAY AREA!

From: [e-mail]

We have 20 new openings for java servlet and applet people in the SF
Bay Area for 2 new internet start-up companies. At least 2yrs expr.
required.

Excellent salary and tremendous stock options!

Interest?!!! Email me with an attached resume at [e-mail]

To get a better look at the available openings, go to
www.venturetalent.com

I will only post this message once!

Thanks
Shakir Wahhab
Venture Talent


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: [e-mail]                            10-Nov-99 00:26:20
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 21:17:16
Subj: Re: MS is a monopoly - but here is a legit questrion

From: [e-mail] (Lee Riemenschneider)

On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 19:00:19, [e-mail] (Mike Trettel) wrote:

>                           Unfortunately (for MS) there's little incentive
> for the DOJ to take any kind of half assed settlement offer-why should
> they?  Judge Jackson has made it quite clear that the DOJ will get pretty
> much whatever they want.
[SNIP]
>              Now due to arrogance and pride they're stuck in the mud with
> very little short term options.
>
I'm sure the DOJ won't forget how Microsoft made a mockery of their last
settlement on the predatory monopoly issue.  I'm also sure that the
arrogance Microsoft showed at the start of this trial, calling the
judge, DOJ lawyers, and Reno clueless and incompetent, will also come
back to haunt them in any settlement talks.
I remember a cartoon I saw in Infoworld(?) in which Bill Gates is
mooning the judge, and the Microsoft lawyer is saying, "Now don't take
this out of context your honor." :-)

Lee W. Riemenschneider
Die Hard Purdue Fan!
OS/2 User and Supporter

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: WinStar GoodNet, Inc. (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               10-Nov-99 00:39:18
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 21:17:16
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:

-- snip --

> > If the student insists that his measurements are valid, and he
> > insists that those of three other students' aren't (because they are
> > quite different from his),
>
> I see you still can't keep the chronology straight, Curtis.  There
> weren't three other students involved at the time.  There was only
> one other student involved, and it happens to be one who has a history
> of lying in lab reports.

Right. The fact that Mike (the alleged "liar"), Marty and I claimed that
we could extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE using WinZip, and posted
proof of this (which you ignored), you could dismiss it as "irrelevant"
because it didn't deal with your corrupt copy of the file, but that is
not analogous to the double-chevroned statements above, and the one
below:

> > then the student in question is either inept or arrogant, perhaps both.

Interesting "logic," Dave.

Where did you ever admit that your "measurements weren't valid," Dave?
You have insisted that Mike's, Marty's and my "results weren't valid"
because we weren't using your "voltmeter."

> Your conclusion is what is "inept", Curtis, given how you've once again
> ignored the proper chronology.

You keep bringing this up, but it ultimately makes no difference (see
above). I have shown that you posted youor error messages ***as a
response to*** Mike's claim of extracting the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE
without running OS/2. You dimiss this because "Mike is a known liar,"
which has absolutely nothing to do with the ***fact*** that his claim
was ***truthful*** and ***accurate,*** And that your claim was
***erroneous.***

It's interesting that you would claim Mike to be a "known liar" (which
can qualify as slander in this public forum) yet choose to "debate" with
him anyway. If he is a "know liar," then when do you decide to believe
what he is saying?

The answer, of course, is that you ***ONLY*** believe him when it suits
your "argument," and choose ***NOT*** to believe him when ***THAT***
suits your "argument."

-- snip --

> > Unfortunately, your lab assignment example is an inappropriate anaolgy,
> > because, in most such cases, the student is expected to work alone, or
> > in a predetemined team, which precludes the sharing of information that
> > might indicate that the student in question is indeed getting incorrect
> > results.
>
> Nothing inappropriate about it, Curtis, given that information was
> shared with the instructor.  You are obviously having difficulty
> seeing yourself in the role of the instructor.  Too embarassed to
> claim that someone was "inept" when there's no logical basis for the
> accusation, Curtis?

Let me get this straight . . .

1) You considered Mike's claim that he could
   extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE to be
   a "lie" because he is a "known liar."

2) You run JAVAINUF.EXE in a DOS session and
   get a "This program must be run in OS/2"
   message.

3) You try unzip.exe on JAVAINUF.EXE and get
   a bunch of error messages, and cannot
   extract the contents of the file that way.

4) The other files you downloaded from IBM
   executed in OS/2 just fine.

5) You conclude that one has to run OS/2 in
   order to extract the contents of
   JAVAINUF.EXE, even though you actually
   haven't done so yourself.

6) When Mike posts his "lie," you respond
   with the InfoZip error messages.

7) Because you respond to Mike's claim re-
   garding WinZip with your failed attempt
   using InfoZip, and because you made the
   erroneous statement that one had to use
   OS/2 in order to extract the contents of
   JAVAINUF.EXE, I state that you are inept.

8) At some point, Marty tells you that he
   was successful using unzip.exe on the
   JAVAINUF.EXE file.

9) You conclude that your file is "incomplete."

10) When Marty or I claim that WinZip can
    process JAVAINUF.EXE properly, you dis-
    miss it because WinZip can't process
    your "incomplete" file.

11) You state that all unzip tools should
    have the same result.

So, the bottom line is that you chose to ignore Mike's data, and
therefore came to an erroneous conclusion, but that is somehow "okay."

When I come to a "conclusion" using all data that I have at my disposal,
ignoring none, that is not okay, even though you initially withheld data
(the fact of your file's being "incomplete") until after I made my
"conclusion."

But that is also "okay."

Finally, you presupposed Mike to be lying, but were later shown to be in
error in said presupposition, yet still cling to the erroneous
conclusion to which you arrived based on said erroneous presupposition.

And that is also "okay," and certainly not "inept."

It's so clear now.

-- snip --


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Organized? ME?!!? (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                     10-Nov-99 01:14:02
  To: All                                               09-Nov-99 21:17:16
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: "David D. Huff Jr." <[e-mail]>

Written by another educated A-hole from the University of Arkansas.

"Vincent P. LaBella" wrote:

> > this is boring but please read and add flames
>
> Hello
>
>         I was a long time OS/2 user, since 2.0 (pre service pack) and I
> just recently moved to NT.  I feel a need to share my experiences with
> OS/2 and why I liked it and why I'm not using it anymore.  Maybe some of
> you have gone through this and can reminisce. Maybe some of you are going
> through the same thing right now.  Maybe there are some of you who are
> still die hard users and holding on to OS/2 for dear life.  No matter what
> your current psychological state regarding OS/2 is please read my long and
> boring story as I cast it out into the digital void.  This process will
> help me cleanse my soul if nothing else.
>
>         I started using computers around 1984.  my first introduction to
> an operating system (if you want to call it that) was DOS 2.1 and ever
> since I've been a command line junky, even though DOS's default command
> line capabilities were poor at best.  I learned to program in BASIC, then
> Pascal and then C all on an 8088 PC with a green screen and a 30 MB hard
> drive.  As I entered college I got out of the PC scene all together and
> studied engineering and physics.  The minimal programming I did was in
> FORTRAN on a VAX (yes even in 1990).
>
> As I ended my undergraduate career I bought a PC ~1992 (486-50 w 16MB ram)
> and I wanted a real OS.  I had never used windows but I heard that it had
> lots of problems and was basically DOS with some fancy graphics.  So I saw
> an add by IBM and bought OS/2 2.0 for $50 in June of 1992.
>
>         This point is amazing now that I think of it. I mean, with
>         all of IBM's ineffective marketing they managed to sell
>         OS/2 to me with an add in a magazine and I didn't know
>         much about computers.
>
> However, my days of programming on a DOS box made me drool for crash
> proofing and multitasking, two of OS/2's streangths. I got OS/2 installed
> and It worked rather well.  A lot of hard drive churning but nevertheless
> it basically did what I wanted.  It ran my DOS C compiler and quick basic
> stuff just fine in separate windows and If one thing crashed the other
> ones kept on running.  I bought 2.1 the day after it came out, directly
> from IBM I think I payed $99.00 for it and there was a rebate too I think.
> Anyway, I was overjoyed.  2.1 was fast and ran windows stuff superbly.
>
>         I went on to grad school in 94 and got introduced to the Internet
> (which was basically email and FTP sites at that time the web was just
> beginning)  I subscribed to the OS/2 discussion list and I enjoyed ranting
> and raving about OS/2 to all the other users.  I think at this point is
> when I started to become a die-hard OS/2 user.  I became aware of M$ and
> there attempts with NT to dethrone OS/2 as the most popular 32-bit OS in
> the world.  I also became aware of M$ monopolizing grip on the PC market.
> I mean if I wanted to buy a PC I couldn't get OS/2 pre-loaded.  Why not?
>
>         I think 92-95 were the hey-days of the OS wars.  People, mostly
> zealots would argue about APPS and drivers and installed base/pre-loads
> blah blah blah.  At this time I discovered all the great OS/2 shareware
> available over the Internet.  In addition, I became aware of the free
> software foundation and the GCC compiler which Eberhard Mattes had ported
> to OS/2.  So I quickly downloaded it and taught my self how to program in
> C++ and build GUI's with OS/2's Presentation manager (what a klunky name).
>
>         In grad school I majored in physics and used a scanning tunneling
> microscope (STM) to image atoms on the surfaces of single crystals.  These
> instruments were home made and needed lots of software.  So I wrote it all
> for OS/2. What better platform could you ask for, it was stable and
> multitasked and had a GUI.  Most grad students were stuck using klunky
> command line programs for DOS.  Not me! I wanted real time imaging
> capabilities and mouse control and I did it all for free with GCC and emx!
>
>         As grad school wore on and the Internet exploded.  OS/2's
> popularity started to wain.  However I didn't want to reprogram anything
> or reinstall a new OS.  All I wanted to do was graduate and get my degree,
> which I did in 98. So I continued to use OS/2.  However, I knew it was
> doomed and I tried to keep my stuff as platform independent as possible.
> The majority of the code was written in C/C++ and my thesis and papers
> were written in TeX.
>
> Then I started my new job and I really didn't want to program anymore. I
> mean, I just wanted to use a computer to get something done like analyze
> some data or write a paper or check email, the web or whatever.  It was at
> this point I came to the realization that maybe some of you have already
> come to.  If not you'll be there soon
>
>                 "WHO THE F*** CARES WHAT OS YOU USE"
>
> Yes, who cares what it takes to get the job done as long as it gets done.
> So use the simplest easiest default OS that comes with your computer and
> allows you to do all this and
>
>         guess what all you OS/2-ers out there
>
>                         THAT MEANS WINDOWS!
>
> I know some of you are thinking why not use OS/2? However, it takes time
> and effort to put OS/2 on a computer, and it doesn't do anything
> special that NT doesn't do.  In fact NT does more and has more software
> available for it.  I mean on a daily basis the GCC compiler is updated and
> NT versions are ported as well.  This does not happen on OS/2 I think the
> GCC that is available for OS/2 is two years behind the times.  All
> programming libraries out there have NT ports and OS/2 ports that are
> there are either behind or buggy.
>
> I'm sorry OS/2 but I have to part with you.  You are dead. Lost and gone
> in a world wide web that has forgotten you.  The ezine is dead edm/2 is
> dead there is a boring supersite but who cares and oh yes warpstock - that
> is all I want to do, go to another boring conference.
>
> In fact, with the way the computer industry is today the OS won't matter
> anymore either.  It seems the only thing that matters anymore is the Web
> and online trading.  What the F** does this have to do with an OS
> anymore?
>
>         Soon there will we wrist-watches that surf the web.
>                 What are we going to do?
>                         Try and put OS/2 on those wrist-watches?
>
>         get real.
>                         the OS is dead
>
> get with the times OS/2-ers
>
>                 Leave OS/2
>
>                                 Its not that bad over-here in NT land.
>
>                         Its not as bad as you might think.
>
>                 It wont hurt.
>
>         Its painless.
>
>                                 Come join us.
>
>                         There are lots of drivers.
>
>         Lots of software.
>
>                                 Lots of share-ware.
>
>         We are nice people.
>
>                         We wont bite.
>
>                                 -promise

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            10-Nov-99 01:28:13
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:17
Subj: Re: Warp users running Be?

From: [e-mail] (Lee Riemenschneider)

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 13:07:52, Mirage Media <[e-mail]> wrote:
> "David H. McCoy" wrote:
> > Agreed. But if one gets this with one's current OS, with more hardware and
> > application support, what is the incentive to move?
> >
>
> Other than yourself, who said anything about moving?

Don't you know that you have to latch on to one operating system, talk
about it like it's the best thing ever invented, and go around to the
other OS's newsgroups and bad mouth them? >;->

Lee W. Riemenschneider
Die Hard Purdue Fan!
OS/2 User and Supporter

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: WinStar GoodNet, Inc. (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                    10-Nov-99 01:34:23
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:17
Subj: Re: The Words of the Judge

From: [e-mail] (William Sonna)

On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 19:50:45, [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)
wrote:

> >>>>(William Sonna)
> >>>>As an ex-OS/2 developer, I can say with absolute certainty that my
> >>>>decision to leave OS/2 had nothing whatsoever to do with any so-called
> >>>>"MS monopoly". (In fact, I had been using "non-MS products" for a
> >>>>decade before even getting into OS/2. As a developer, I can go
> >>>>wherever *I* want to go).
>
> >>>If the huge installed base of Windows isn't/wasn't a mafor factor in
> >>>your decisions, then I'd have to say you are an extremely poor
> >>>developer
>
> >>Are you claiming that all curent Linux, BeOS, OS/2, and Mac
> >>programmers are "extremely poor programmers"?
>
> >Where do you find "extremely poor programmers" in my statement?
>
> Look above. You use the word "developer" instead of "programmer", but
> that's a pedantic nit-pick along the lines of something that Tholen
> would pull.
>
> Are you trying to emulate Tholen's style of "argument" here (ie,
> arguing over absurd, alleged, literal "differences" in definitions) in
> order to futilely contradict the personal experiences and viewpoints
> of someone who disagrees with you?
>
> In your ignorant (and I say that because you don't know anything about
> me, and yet have jumped to a value judgment that I am "an extremely
> poor developer") appraisal, you have yet to answer the logical
> question that I posed to you. There are lots of Linux, BeOS, OS/2, and
> Mac programmers out there. Do you believe them all to be "extremely
> poor developers"? That definitely appears to be the case based upon
> your criteria for such. Or, have you simply made an arbitrary,
> unsubstantiated judgment of me? I'm trying to determine if your
> ignorance is confined to me, or is a more widespread ignorance about
> developers.
>
> Nevertheless, I stand by my assessment that yours is an arrogant and
> naive view, which is not at all close to the way that developers view
> things.
>
> >The term developer and programmer are not, in my mind, the same; nor
> >are they interchangeable.  The process of development is a purely
> >business one and applies generally to the leveraged acquisition of
> >non-exisitant entities for subsequent resale.
>
> No, a "developer" who does "purely business" actions and no
> programming -- who purchases the rights to sell someone else's
> software -- is a "distributer".
>
> But all of this is irrelevant to the point of my previous post
> regarding IBM's "relationship" with developers, and why this is the
> cause of OS/2's lack of support from developers.
>
> Are you trying to emulate Tholen's style of "argument" here (ie,
> arguing over absurd, alleged, literal "differences" in definitions) in
> order to futilely contradict the personal experiences and viewpoints
> of someone who disagrees with you?
>
> >Do you consider a general contractor or construction manager to be a
> >real estate developer?  They know how to build buildings.  But they
> >are not in the business of development.
>
> I'll note that this pedantic nit-picking has no relevancy to the
> truthful points that I raised about developer's attitudes toward IBM
> and the consequences of those attitudes, and indeed, fails to address
> my points entirely.
>
> Are you trying to emulate Tholen's style of "argument" here (ie,
> responding to someone's points with totally irrelevant questions in
> order to futilely draw attention away from the points of someone who
> disagrees with you)?
>
> >Developers have the means to initiate any new product they are able to
> >convince their financial backers is feasible, either long or short
> >term.  If the developer can't convince the money people, the product
> >is not created.
>
> >The self-financed developer has only to convince himself.
>
> Apparently you have no idea how many developers are "self-financed".
> I'm not surprised. You must think that Lotus and Microsoft are the
> only developers in existence.
>
> It's a pity that you don't even recognize Brad Wardell, a person whom
> an OS/2 Advocate *should* know about. Typical. How do you think he got
> started? How do you think he got where he is? Do you even know?
>
> >The case was not initiated by a "bunch of computer companies" trying
> >to enhance their bottom lines.  It was initiated by the DOJ and a
> >group of state's attorneys general.
>
> It was "brought to the DOJ's attention" by certain MS competitors.
> That's typically the way it works. I have no doubt that, if some
> company like Caldera had not whined to some political entity about how
> MS caused Caldera's failures in the marketplace, the multitude of DOJ
> employees would today be cluelessly typing away at their thousands of
> Windows-based PCs, totally unaware that there was any "problem" at
> all.
>
> And I'm sure that when this one was brought to the DOJ's attention, it
> looked like it could make careers for some DOJ bureaucrats, so I'm
> sure that they jumped at the chance.... *after* someone who knows more
> about the computer industry than the typical DOJ lawyer told the DOJ
> what "the problem" was from his perspective, and advised the DOJ what
> to claim in court.
>
> >As for the juge jury awards, that may yet come as a result of this,
> >but it certainly hasn't occured yet.  In fact, the verdict is not even
> >in.  Don't you think you're jumping the gun on this?
>
> I never said that there would necessarily be huge jury awards. I
> merely said that this is typical of what MS' competitors involved in
> the case hope will happen.... because they know that they have neither
> the skill nor dedication to actually compete without some government
> agency knocking down their more competent competitors.
>
> For example, although IBM is many times the size of MS and could
> afford to spend MS right out of business (ie, is theoretically *much*
> more powerful than MS and much more capable of marketing a major
> product), IBM has proven that it has neither the competence nor even
> the will to compete with MS in the PC OS business. It is now obvious
> that IBM doesn't even *want* to sell operating systems to home
> consumers. (IBM has all but told home consumers to "get lost"). The
> fact that the judge couldn't figure this out is testimony to how
> clueless he is, and how he was manipulated by bad information supplied
> to him by people with ulterior motives.
>
> The tragic thing is that I very much expect to see more lawsuits
> lodged by incompetent and untalented developers against their more
> qualified competitors in light of this DOJ case. (Well, depending upon
> how the "damages" play out. This may yet turn into just another empty,
> symbolic gesture, like so many of the other DOJ rulings). Now, every
> inept bungler who has ever lost a sale to some competitor is going to
> run to the courtroom seeking "damages".
>
> [Note to OS/2 developers who went bankrupt following IBM's strategies:
> If this court case produces significant damages, you may want to
> consider a class action suit against IBM to recover your "damages".
> Just make sure you get a judge who is as ignorant of the computer
> industry as Jackson --- shouldn't be hard to find. It will look great
> on his resume, presiding over a David versus Goliath court case. The
> press will love it, and you'll have a good chance to get a favorable
> decision from a pompous, know-nothing judge who wants to be in the
> limelight. For that matter, I'm sure that former OS/2 endusers have
> incurred some "damages" as a result of IBM's marketing of OS/2. Did
> you have to invest in another OS to get work done? Did the OS/2
> developer who made an important tool go out of business and negatively
> impact your work? If so, sue IBM. That's the way you do things in the
> USA. Just go out there and find enough of IBM's competitors to finance
> your case. Don't worry, you'll find plenty of competitors who would
> love to have a piece of IBM's action, and will underwrite a good media
> court case in order to get it. In fact, now would be a good time for
> all Mac, Atari, CBM, etc, people to get together and file a class
> action suit against both IBM and MS concerning unfair monopolistic
> practices. After all, IBM and MS were partners in developing a PC
> operating system throughout the time that this competition was losing
> marketshare. I'm sure that you could convince a judge that IBM
> effectively wielded its 80's-circa "monopoly power" through MS, and
> thereby stifled competition. Ask for the sky. You'll get it in the
> current atmosphere of blaming the leader for the underdog's woes].
>
> Meanwhile, the truly talented, dedicated, hard-working developers will
> stick to that formula that they *know* is the only way to get ahead,
> and rely upon their own dedication, talent, and hard work to do so.
>
> >> Just like all business strategies that utilize something other than
> >> hard work and dedication to get ahead, I expect that this strategy
> >> will be completely ineffective. For example, I have absolutely no
> >> doubt that none of this will change developers' attitudes toward IBM,
> >> nor make them more inclined to support IBM. After all, their reasons
> >> for doing so have nothing to do with MS per se, but rather, a lack of
> >> faith in IBM -- a sincere doubt that IBM has anything whatsoever to
> >> offer the developer that they can't better get elsewhere (or on their
> >> own), Indeed, a lot of developers rightly see involvement with IBM as
> >> a dangerous proposition since they can't afford to underwrite IBM's
> >> business blunders
>
> >Did Microsoft utilize something other than hard work and dedication to
> >get ahead?
>
> I'll note that this has no relevancy to the truthful points that I
> raise above about developer's attitudes toward IBM and the
> consequences of those attitudes, and indeed, fails to address my
> points entirely.
>
> Are you trying to emulate Tholen's style of "argument" here (ie,
> responding to someone's points with totally irrelevant questions in
> order to futilely draw attention away from the points of someone who
> disagrees with you)?
>
> >Its now a legal fact.
>
> It's also a "legal fact" that certain MS competitors have neither the
> talent nor even the will to compete with MS. That's exactly what this
> decision shows (to people who REALLY know the industry) when we see a
> company such as IBM, many times the size of MS and which could afford
> to spend MS right out of business, get up on the witness stand and
> testify that they were allegedly helpless against MS, and that MS
> "beat them up".
>
> IBM wasn't helpless. IBM was simply inept, short-sighted,
> disorganized, and disinterested in what it perceived to be an area
> that didn't offer the obscene levels of income that IBM needs to feed
> itself. (IBM sells expensive mainframes in big ticket orders to
> Fortune 500 companies. IBM doesn't even have a desire to sell $100
> operating systems, a few at a time to a multitude of third parties...
> well, not unless IBM can get an exclusive lock on the market like what
> IBM says that MS now has. It's quite ironic to see IBM as a witness in
> this trial. But it does underscore exactly how clueless some
> observers/participants have been in looking at what actually is going
> down and has gone down).
>
> IBM never was competent competition to MS, but that's because of IBM
> itself, not MS.

I get the distinct impression that you are not happy with the judges'
finding of fact.

So maybe you should write the judge a letter.

Tell him what a clueless twit he is, how he's on the payroll of
Microsoft's enemies and how Microsoft really isn't a monopoly anyway
since YOU KNOW IT FOR A FACT TO BE TRUE (and its all IBM's fault
anyway).

Inform him that all he had to do was call you and you'd have gladly
clued him in and saved everyone a year's time.

And make sure you copy your psychiatrist.  He may want to increase
your dose of lithium.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            10-Nov-99 02:00:16
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:17
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: [e-mail] (Lee Riemenschneider)

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 15:10:37, "David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]>
wrote:
>                                                         I think Netscape
> sold for about $4 billion.  This is a lot but it is nothing compared
> with what they might have become and what they might have produced for
> consumers.

Netscape wanted to become another Microsoft.  I doubt they would have
produced much for the benefit of consumers, because they used the same
hard ball tactics to keep their monopoly that Microsoft did.  Netscape
and IE aren't the only two viable browsers on the market due to
technical merit;  they are because Netscape had already crushed the
competition.  I'd much rather use Web Explorer than the bloated buggy
beast called Mozilla, but unfortunately Netscape changed the internet
for the worse (@#$%&@ frames).
I'm not shedding any tears for Netscape.  They made a good smokescreen
to help sway public opinion in the DOJ case, but fortunately, the judge
didn't concentrate on them to the exclusion of the companies/products
that were really harmed.

Lee W. Riemenschneider
Die Hard Purdue Fan!
OS/2 User and Supporter

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: WinStar GoodNet, Inc. (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         10-Nov-99 02:03:25
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:17
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Vincent P. LaBella writes:

> Soon there will we wrist-watches that surf the web.  What are we
> going to do?  Try and put OS/2 on those wrist-watches?
>
> get real.

Are you going to try and put Windows 2000 on those wrist watches?

get real

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               09-Nov-99 21:21:14
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:17
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451492

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Well, unfortunately Dave hasn't stopped wasting bandwidth (or even slowed
down), having excreted his invective and illogic all over his keyboard and
passing on said excretion to the readers of COOA.  Of course, by his response,
he effectively admitted that his postings are "baby-talk tripe", because he
claimed that I was incorrect when I said that I don't respond to such
postings.  He has even tried that tired old "I'm a programmer" line, but when
asked to present evidence he has failed to do so time and time again, and only
serves to make him look like a fool, as he has already demonstrated a high
degree of ignorance in the field.  Unfortunately, he doesn't confine his
ignorance to the field of software, either.  He also decided that I not only
have a wagon, but I've hitched it to Curtis Bass' alleged horse, while again
ignoring the incontrovertible evidence presented to him.  No surprise there.
Why do you think he was twice elected Kook of the Month?

One wonders who Dave perceives he is currently addressing and for whose
benefit
is his infantile "digest" game.  It certainly doesn't benefit him, as it
further shows what a hypocritical buffoon he is.  I guess it's part of his
infantile tantrum and "wrath" (denoted by "I warned you about going down this
path") because I embarassed him so much.  Too bad his "wrath" is completely
ineffective, as I would assume any wrath emanating from him would be.

You have to ask yourself, is it because of Dave's sex life that he is going
through all of this?

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Well, unfortunately Marty is back to wasting more bandwidth, having
> expanded his invective and illogic into eight more articles today.
> Of course, by responding, he effectively admitted that my postings
> are not "baby-talk tripe", because he claimed that he would not respond
> to such postings.  He's even trying that tired old "astrologer" line,
> which has never had any effect on me here and only serves to make the
> person uttering the line look like a fool.  He also decided to hitch
> his wagon to Curtis Bass' horse regarding Timbol's reference to
> classes.zip.  But what neither Marty nor Curtis seem to recall is
> that Timbol was referring to classes.zip long before javainuf.exe was
> brought up.  Why do you think I had to ask Timbol repeatedly which
> top-level file contained classes.zip?
>
> 1> It would appear that Dave's threshold of embarassment has still
> 1> not been breached, as he continues to post "baby-talk tripe" (by
> 1> his own admission) further embarassing himself.  Today he decided
> 1> he would hypocritically concentrate on accusing others of "invective"
> 1> while attempting to hurl his own pathetically weak and stale brand
> 1> of insults towards others in order to avoid admitting to his many
> 1> mistakes.  This is a refreshing change of pace from his previous
> 1> schtick of ignoring (by his own admission) hard evidence presented
> 1> to him and erroneously claiming it is irrelevant, whilst attempting
> 1> to cover up his blatant ineptitude and embarassing mistakes.

Note: no response

> 1> Tholen has time and again claimed that he addresses issues.
> 1> Nevertheless, he's been responding to postings that he insists are
> 1> part of an "infantile game" on my part, which is evidence for the
> 1> dishonesty of his earlier claim.  As for his own "infantile game",
> 1> there's more evidence in all the invective and unsubstantiated
> 1> claims contained in all of his postings in this thread.

Note: no response

> 1> I can swear I've read that somewhere else before, only it had more
> 1> of a hypocritical angle to it as I remember.

Note: no response

> 2> Perhaps because there was none.  How ironic coming from a person
> 2> (?) who repeatedly ignored factual information presented to him
> 2> from persons less inept than he.

Note: no response

> 2> How ironic and hypocritical, coming from a person (?) who reposts
> 2> the same irrelevant questions some 20 odd times in a given post.

Note: no response

> 2> http://emuos2.vintagegaming.com/downloads/WinZipJava118.jpg

Note: no response

> 2> And Dave's ineptitude was further highlighted.

Note: no response

> 2> One can't ignore what isn't there.

Note: no response

> 2> By anyone who mistakenly thought that Dave was forthright enough
> 2> to check his own "evidence" before shooting off his hypocritical
> 2> mouth.  Who would make such an assumption at this stage in the
> 2> game is beyond me.

Note: no response

> 2> It was nothing more than an infantile guessing game.  How immature
> 2> to deliberately postpone revealing such a fact to play little
> 2> infantile games and cover up Dave's embarassment.

Note: no response

> 2> An irrelevant one, no less.  But that won't stop Dave from shooting
> 2> off his hypocritical mouth and speaking about the other archive that
> 2> he didn't even bother to view.

Note: no response

> 2> Right.  Dave always waits until after he makes a complete jackass
> 2> out of himself to change his claims.

Note: no response

> 2> Dave had no evidence to support anything he was saying, but that
> 2> never stops him.  This is par for the course for our alleged
> 2> "scientist".

Note: no response

> 2> Note:  Dave ineptly asks an irrelevant, yet obvious question,
> 2> avoiding answering the straightforward, relevant question addressed
> 2> to him.  No surprise there.

Note: no response

> 2> Like Dave's inability to extract the archive, or his inability to
> 2> download it.

Note: no response

> 2> Only, instead of informing those with whom he was arguing about this
> 2> he chose to play an infantile guessing game.

Note: no response

> 2> So Dave didn't check his facts until *after* he was proven wrong.
> 2> Par for the course for our astrologer.

Note: no response

> 2> How completely ironic, coming from the person who refused to view
> 2> relevant evidence yet persisted to argue about it.

Note: no response

> 2> Wrong.  He correctly asserted that calling *Dave Tholen* self-deluded
> 2> is not "invective".

Note: no response

> 2> There only seems to be a lack of a logical argument up there.

Note: no response

> 2> How ironic.

Note: no response

> 3> How absurd and ironic to respond with such a leading question.

Note: no response

> 3> What alleged "reasoning"?

Note: no response

> 3> Then change them to something that suits you better, the way Dave does.

Note: no response

> 3> Incorrect, as Dave has proven he is incapable of using logic, proof,
> 3> and common sense.

Note: no response

> 3> How ironic and hypocritical, given Dave's approach of cutting a
> 3> sentence in half and using the second half without regard to the first.

Note: no response

> 4> Note the hypocritically indignant tone.

Note: no response

> 4> How hypocritical to expect other to remain civil whilst Dave hurls
> 4> insults and non-civility toward whomever he chooses.

Note: no response

> 4> And I note that Dave is a complete hypocrite as he has insulted my
> 4> abilities, without witnessing or experiencing them, by saying that
> 4> my employer had low standards for hiring me.

Note: no response

> 4> What Dave fails to realize is that Curtis wasn't calling him a name,
> 4> but, in fact describing the behavior he witnessed.  Dave's behavior
> 4> itself is what insults Dave.

Note: no response

> 4> How ironic, coming from the arch-hypocrite himself.

Note: no response

> 5> The following are self-substantiating:

Note: no response

> 6> Indeed.  But I am certain that we will see the arch-hypocrite ignore
> 6> the written evidence that I just presented proving him dead wrong as
> 6> usual.

Note: no response

> 7> And now to show how utterly wrong Dave is again, let's examine
classes.zip
> 7> ourselves, shall we?

Note: no response

> 7> That's the first few lines.  The rest of the files within the zip
> 7> follow a similar pattern.  Note if you will the compression method
> 7> for these files, namely "STORED".  This means the files have a
> 7> compression ratio of 0%, resulting in the overall classes.zip file
> 7> being uncompressed but combined (a la "tar").  How then could Mike
> 7> Timbol have been referring to the contents of classes.zip when he said
> 7> it was compressed at 57%?

Note: no response

> 7> Classes.Zip only appears to be compressed when examining the contents
> 7> of JAVAINUF.EXE.  Thus proving that Mike Timbol, in quoting the
> 7> statistics above, was proving that he could read JAVAINUF.EXE, just
> 7> as Curtis claimed, and the rest of Tholen's hollow argument comes
> 7> tumbling down again.

Note: no response

> 7> Man, it must be really embarassing to be as wrong as Tholen, as often
> 7> as he is.

Note: no response

> 8> Dave can't even comprehend his own words, as evidenced below:

Note: no response

> 8> How embarassingly incorrect and hypocritical.  Par for the course
> 8> for Dave.

Note: no response

> 9> How typically hypocritical.

Note: no response

> 9> Apparently Tholen thinks that he can make a definitive statement
> 9> such as an answer to a question by posing an irrelevant, unrelated
> 9> question.  Is he that stupid, hypocritical, and utterly brain dead?
> 9> Actually, in light of that question, I may see his point.

Note: no response

> 9> And I have shown Tholen to be utterly incorrect by showing that
> 9> classes.zip was not compressed at all, unless one views it from
> 9> inside of JAVAINUF.EXE.  How embarassing.

Note: no response

> 9> Clearly Tholen made another erroneous statement without bothering
> 9> to check his facts.  No surprise there.

Note: no response

> 9> Again Tholen defers to a previously lost argument to cover up and
> 9> distract readers from his mistakes in this one.  Too bad the
> 9> technique is so transparent.

Note: no response

> 9> Note how Tholen changes gears yet again to the subject of the
> 9> correctly downloaded file.  And he has the nerve to complain about
> 9> chronology and consistency.

Note: no response

> 9> And Tholen chooses whichever one happens to suit his "argument" on
> 9> a minute by minute basis.  Too bad this technique is so transparent
> 9> as well.

Note: no response

> 9> And he didn't bother to verify his facts before shooting off his
> 9> mouth either.  How embarassing.  If I were him, I'd try to sweep
> 9> that embarassment under the rug.  Thank goodness I'm not.

Note: no response

> 9> Which is just as ambiguous, as Tholen possessed both the runtime
> 9> and the development environment.  Too bad he just slipped up again.
> 9> Quite unfortunate that he can't keep his own argumentative tripe in
> 9> order in his own mind, let alone in public Usenet postings.

Note: no response

> 9> Switch gears yet again back to Dave's incomplete downloaded file.
> 9> Talk about inconsistency...

Note: no response

> 9> An obvious lie, which unfortunately is also quite transparent.

Note: no response

> 9> How ironic.

Note: no response

> 9> Too bad the JPG image was already available in that time frame,
> 9> soundly disproving Tholen, as usual.

Note: no response

> 9> Of course Dave had no evidence to support any of his claims since
> 9> he never bothered checking up on them before shooting off his
> 9> arrogant buzz-phrases.

Note: no response

> 9> Funny how no one else involved in this thread had a problem
> 9> downloading the file.  Using Netscape for OS/2 or otherwise.

Note: no response

> 9> And Dave still doesn't see the illogic in relying on this as
> 9> evidence.  How absurd, given that in order to see that message,
> 9> one has to run it in another operating system.  But don't let
> 9> that side-issue distract you from the true error that Tholen
> 9> just made, namely that the file needed to be executed at all
> 9> to extract its contents.

Note: no response

> 9> Too bad this is completely inappropriate "evidence".

Note: no response

> 9> The error is that there is no need to execute the program to
> 9> extract its contents.

Note: no response

> 9> Yes.  He's suffered enough embarassment misusing simple phrases
> 9> like "stub", "bound executable", and "display".  No need to
> 9> torment the poor man(?).

Note: no response

> 9> Unfortunately, the poor ignoramus Tholen doesn't realize that Mike
> 9> only gave the statistics on classes.zip as an example to show that
> 9> he could read the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.  I won't counter-accuse
> 9> Dave of lying here because he just seems too stupid to grasp what
> 9> actually happened.  It's not his fault.

Note: no response

> 9> Dave doesn't need to see solid evidence, Curtis.  You should know
> 9> that he'll just ignore it by now if it doesn't suit his argument.

Note: no response

> 9> Just like I said..

Note: no response

> 9> I suppose the 32 bit CRC of a file contained within the archive is
> 9> not "hard" enough evidence for Tholen who hypocritically didn't even
> 9> successfully extract his own version of said archive before shooting
> 9> off his mouth.

Note: no response

> 9> And Dave has mastered them both in his writings.

Note: no response

> 9> Why bother when we have a living(?) breathing(?) example of the
> 9> very incarnation of "inept" right here in COOA?

Note: no response

> 9> No surprise there.  Typical arrogance in the face of incontrovertible
> 9> evidence.

Note: no response

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                            09-Nov-99 21:33:12
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:17
Subj: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1433590.html?tag=st.ne.ron.lthd.1003-200-
1433590


So, we now have JavaBlend in Solaris and NT flavors? Isn't OS/2 the premiere
platform?
And where Realplayer has released 7.0? What are the odds of a Win16 version?

Let the spin...begin!

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            09-Nov-99 21:37:12
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:17
Subj: Were is Warpzilla?

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

Not to long ago, someone claimed that Warpzilla was ahead of every other
Mozilla port.

While, according to AOL, Communicator 5.0 will beta next month. I guess at the

point we'll see of Warpzilla truly is ahead of the pack or just another dashed

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               09-Nov-99 20:39:25
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: "All bets are off regarding Windows" - IBM

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

Gee, that sounds so familiar - yet when such compact machines were readily
available from several independent computer makers, everybody was fucking in
droves just to buy the shiny new PC or PC clone.

Sod IBM.  Anyone who continues to deal with them is full of [censored].

Mirage Media <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> Read it and weep. The times they are a'changing.
>
> http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1006-200-1431968.html
>
> Corey
> Mirage Media
> Nuenen, The Netherlands
>
> Fine Art Nudes Kyoto
> http://web.kyoto-inet.or.jp/people/photos/gallery/C_SHADOW/index.html
> Polaroid Transfer Art
> http://www.frii.com/~uliasz/photoart/polaroid/t_gallery/corey.htm


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               09-Nov-99 20:43:02
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: bye-bye os/2

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

Our opinions differ slightly, but the end result is the same.  OS/2 is dead.

I'm more likely to blame the software makers since they don't want to be
bothered with the effort to write for non-Windows/PC platforms.  This is
what they wanted  long before the Mac and Amiga came out.

Vincent P. LaBella <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
>
> > this is boring but please read and add flames
>
> Hello
>
>         I was a long time OS/2 user, since 2.0 (pre service pack) and I
> just recently moved to NT.  I feel a need to share my experiences with
> OS/2 and why I liked it and why I'm not using it anymore.  Maybe some of
> you have gone through this and can reminisce. Maybe some of you are going
> through the same thing right now.  Maybe there are some of you who are
> still die hard users and holding on to OS/2 for dear life.  No matter what
> your current psychological state regarding OS/2 is please read my long and
> boring story as I cast it out into the digital void.  This process will
> help me cleanse my soul if nothing else.
>
>         I started using computers around 1984.  my first introduction to
> an operating system (if you want to call it that) was DOS 2.1 and ever
> since I've been a command line junky, even though DOS's default command
> line capabilities were poor at best.  I learned to program in BASIC, then
> Pascal and then C all on an 8088 PC with a green screen and a 30 MB hard
> drive.  As I entered college I got out of the PC scene all together and
> studied engineering and physics.  The minimal programming I did was in
> FORTRAN on a VAX (yes even in 1990).
>
> As I ended my undergraduate career I bought a PC ~1992 (486-50 w 16MB ram)
> and I wanted a real OS.  I had never used windows but I heard that it had
> lots of problems and was basically DOS with some fancy graphics.  So I saw
> an add by IBM and bought OS/2 2.0 for $50 in June of 1992.
>
>         This point is amazing now that I think of it. I mean, with
>         all of IBM's ineffective marketing they managed to sell
>         OS/2 to me with an add in a magazine and I didn't know
>         much about computers.
>
> However, my days of programming on a DOS box made me drool for crash
> proofing and multitasking, two of OS/2's streangths. I got OS/2 installed
> and It worked rather well.  A lot of hard drive churning but nevertheless
> it basically did what I wanted.  It ran my DOS C compiler and quick basic
> stuff just fine in separate windows and If one thing crashed the other
> ones kept on running.  I bought 2.1 the day after it came out, directly
> from IBM I think I payed $99.00 for it and there was a rebate too I think.
> Anyway, I was overjoyed.  2.1 was fast and ran windows stuff superbly.
>
>         I went on to grad school in 94 and got introduced to the Internet
> (which was basically email and FTP sites at that time the web was just
> beginning)  I subscribed to the OS/2 discussion list and I enjoyed ranting
> and raving about OS/2 to all the other users.  I think at this point is
> when I started to become a die-hard OS/2 user.  I became aware of M$ and
> there attempts with NT to dethrone OS/2 as the most popular 32-bit OS in
> the world.  I also became aware of M$ monopolizing grip on the PC market.
> I mean if I wanted to buy a PC I couldn't get OS/2 pre-loaded.  Why not?
>
>         I think 92-95 were the hey-days of the OS wars.  People, mostly
> zealots would argue about APPS and drivers and installed base/pre-loads
> blah blah blah.  At this time I discovered all the great OS/2 shareware
> available over the Internet.  In addition, I became aware of the free
> software foundation and the GCC compiler which Eberhard Mattes had ported
> to OS/2.  So I quickly downloaded it and taught my self how to program in
> C++ and build GUI's with OS/2's Presentation manager (what a klunky name).
>
>         In grad school I majored in physics and used a scanning tunneling
> microscope (STM) to image atoms on the surfaces of single crystals.  These
> instruments were home made and needed lots of software.  So I wrote it all
> for OS/2. What better platform could you ask for, it was stable and
> multitasked and had a GUI.  Most grad students were stuck using klunky
> command line programs for DOS.  Not me! I wanted real time imaging
> capabilities and mouse control and I did it all for free with GCC and emx!
>
>         As grad school wore on and the Internet exploded.  OS/2's
> popularity started to wain.  However I didn't want to reprogram anything
> or reinstall a new OS.  All I wanted to do was graduate and get my degree,
> which I did in 98. So I continued to use OS/2.  However, I knew it was
> doomed and I tried to keep my stuff as platform independent as possible.
> The majority of the code was written in C/C++ and my thesis and papers
> were written in TeX.
>
> Then I started my new job and I really didn't want to program anymore. I
> mean, I just wanted to use a computer to get something done like analyze
> some data or write a paper or check email, the web or whatever.  It was at
> this point I came to the realization that maybe some of you have already
> come to.  If not you'll be there soon
>
> "WHO THE F*** CARES WHAT OS YOU USE"
>
> Yes, who cares what it takes to get the job done as long as it gets done.
> So use the simplest easiest default OS that comes with your computer and
> allows you to do all this and
>
> guess what all you OS/2-ers out there
>
> THAT MEANS WINDOWS!
>
> I know some of you are thinking why not use OS/2? However, it takes time
> and effort to put OS/2 on a computer, and it doesn't do anything
> special that NT doesn't do.  In fact NT does more and has more software
> available for it.  I mean on a daily basis the GCC compiler is updated and
> NT versions are ported as well.  This does not happen on OS/2 I think the
> GCC that is available for OS/2 is two years behind the times.  All
> programming libraries out there have NT ports and OS/2 ports that are
> there are either behind or buggy.
>
> I'm sorry OS/2 but I have to part with you.  You are dead. Lost and gone
> in a world wide web that has forgotten you.  The ezine is dead edm/2 is
> dead there is a boring supersite but who cares and oh yes warpstock - that
> is all I want to do, go to another boring conference.
>
> In fact, with the way the computer industry is today the OS won't matter
> anymore either.  It seems the only thing that matters anymore is the Web
> and online trading.  What the F** does this have to do with an OS
> anymore?
>
> Soon there will we wrist-watches that surf the web.
> What are we going to do?
> Try and put OS/2 on those wrist-watches?
>
> get real.
> the OS is dead
>
> get with the times OS/2-ers
>
> Leave OS/2
>
> Its not that bad over-here in NT land.
>
> Its not as bad as you might think.
>
> It wont hurt.
>
> Its painless.
>
> Come join us.
>
> There are lots of drivers.
>
> Lots of software.
>
> Lots of share-ware.
>
> We are nice people.
>
> We wont bite.
>
> -promise
>


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

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

From: [e-mail]                            10-Nov-99 03:45:17
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: [e-mail] (Lee Riemenschneider)

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 02:00:33, [e-mail] (Lee
Riemenschneider) wrote:
[SNIP]
Ranting aside, I think the developers did a great job on Netscape/2
4.61. :-)

Lee W. Riemenschneider
Die Hard Purdue Fan!
OS/2 User and Supporter

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: WinStar GoodNet, Inc. (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         10-Nov-99 03:37:26
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Interesting Reading Comprehension Problem by Bass

From: [e-mail] (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:

> That is correct.

Good to see you admit to your dishonesty, Curtis.

> In the quote above, Mike said, "I was able to read the file with
> WinZip."

And in that quote, Mike said:  "The first file in classes.zip
(alphabetically) is AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is
ZipOutputStream.class."

Now, how would he know that unless he read the file classes.zip?

> That yo would claim that he was referring to classes.zip is
> illogical,

Balderdash, Curtis, given that he specifically referred to the first
and last entries in that file.  Clearly he is referring to classes.zip.

> for he would have no earthly reason to make that claim of a ZIP
> file, Dave.

???  No reason to claim that he used an unzipper to unzip a zip file???

> IOW, it is axiomatic that classes.zip, being a zip file, could be read
> by WinZip.

Sounds to me like an "earthly reason", Curtis.

> But the contention is over whether JAVAINUF.EXE could be read in a
> non-OS/2 environment.

On the contrary, the contention is over whether WinZip could make the
missing bytes in my copy of javainuf.exe magically appear, Curtis.

> Ergo, the logical deduction is that Mike was referring to JAVAINUF.EXE
> when he said, "I was able to read the file with WinZip."

Illogical, given that the specific excerpts contained in that quotation
are from classes.zip, Curtis.

> Why indeed?

Yet that's exactly what you're doing.

> Yet you keep doing so

Typical pontification.  I'm not the one who ignored the specific
references to AbstractMethodError.class and ZipOutputStream.class.
Where did he read those?  Why, in classes.zip, of course.

> . . . even after reposting it over and over again.

And you still haven't comprehended it.  Amazing.  Also "inept" on
your part.

> Let's have yet another look:

Why, Curtis?  Didn't you recently write:

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.

> The above information can only be obtained from successfully reading
> JAVAINUF.EXE.

The references to AbstractMethodError.class and ZipOutputStream.class
can only be obtained from successfully reading classes.zip, Curtis.

> Reading classes.zip would not yield any of the above info.

Reading javainuf.exe would not yield the references to
AbstractMethodError.class and ZipOutputStream.class, Curtis.

> Mike ***SUBSEQUENTLY*** reads classes.zip,

On the contrary, Curtis, Timbol was talking about classes.zip long
before he mentioned javainuf.exe; why do you think I had to try several
times to get him to indicate which top-level file contained classes.zip?

> presumably with WinZip, in order to obtain the information presented
> above.

The information presented in the quotation that you chose to delete
when it was being pointed to by my "the first quotation above".

> This proves that Mike was able to extract the classes.zip file from
> JAVAINUF.EXE without running JAVAINUF.EXE on OS/2,

How so, Curtis?  One could run javainuf.exe on OS/2 and then use
InfoZip to read classes.zip.

> thereby refuting Tholen's claim that one had to run OS/2 in order to
> extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.

Your illogic above doesn't refute me, Curtis.

> Because of this, plus Tholen's blatant gaff over the "chronology,"

What alleged "blatant gaff" [sic], Curtis?

> he should be quite embarrassed at this point,

Because you think I committed a "blatant gaff" [sic], when in fact
you're the one committing the "blatant gaff" [sic]?

> but frankly, I don't think he has enough sense to even know
> embarrassment.

How ironic, coming from the person who doesn't know embarrassment.

> I resign this thread,

I'm not surprised.

> not because I have "lost" (on the contrary)

You're claiming that you won, Curtis?

> but because even I get bored of arguing with an insane person
> after a while.

Typical invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
argument.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     10-Nov-99 03:15:17
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Jason R." <[e-mail]>

Uhh, who the hell wants an OS with no real, widespread apps?  Windows
_should_ be the dominant OS because it's easier for the clueless masses to
learn one environment.

Windows has the desktop market because it is, bitter nerds or no bitter
nerds, the best and _only_ real choice for 95% of all desktops.  Other OS's
have their place on the server in many situations.  There exists competition
(again - like it or not) in every market in which MS competes.

The findings of fact are a joke.  Things are the only way they can be.  The
browser belongs with the OS as much as the GUI does or the user management
software does.  That they ding MS for the IE fiasco completely invalidates
anything else they say.  It's like a physicist claiming the Earth is 5000
years old then saying 'Now listen as I explain gravity'.

Peter Ammon wrote in message <[e-mail]>...
>Kelly Robinson wrote:
>>
>> 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...  why people, especially those
in
>> the IBM and apple arenas, don't understand this is well beyond me because
>> it's true.
>
>Be OS is, technically speaking, a much better product than Windows.
>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?
>
>It's a wonder Apple is still here today.  The reason they are is
>because of what they did *right*, not what they did wrong . And they
>must have done quite a bit right to still be here.
>
>-Peter
>
>--
>The Shame Eliminator: http://shameeliminator.cjb.net


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

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

From: [e-mail]                          10-Nov-99 03:12:16
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

>Curtis Bass wrote:
>>
>> 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 text.
>>
>> Good for you, Dave.
>>
>> > Curtis Bass writes:
>> >
>> > > Regardless of whose file it was based on, the claim was erroneous.
>> >
>> > How does that make your copy of the file relevant, Curtis?
>> >
>> > > My copy proves the error of the claim.
>> >
>> > My claim wasn't based on your copy of the file, Curtis, thus your copy
>> > of the file is indeed irrelevant to my claim.
>>
>> Typical circular evasiveness on Dave's part.
>>
>> Are you listening, Karel?  Bennie?  Still astounded by Dave's, uh,
>> "logic?"

>Jeff Glatt is the one responsible for
>the "noise" you're quoting here.

You don't even know what the hell you're talking about. *Nothing* that
Curtis is quoting above is from me.

Get a clue. You're obviously no more "competent" than your buddy
Tholen, and are prone to make wild, totally WRONG assumptions about
who said what.

>Since you, Marty, and Dave have invested so many words in this hot topic,
>I'd be interested in reading a post from each of you that summarizes the
>points each has made.  Individually, that is.  No references to anyone
>else or anyone else's words.  What exactly is the technical information
>that a reader should know that so many words have been spilled over?

What's the matter? You're not capable of following a discussion? I've
had no trouble figuring out who said what. You obviously have, but
that's clearly also your own fault. If you knew how to read
attribution lines, you'd know that no quote of mine appeared in
Curtis' post contrary to your incorrect insistence that Curtis is
"quoting [me] here"

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            09-Nov-99 21:13:28
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: "Vincent P. LaBella" <[e-mail]>

On 10 Nov 1999, Dave Tholen wrote:

> Vincent P. LaBella writes:
>
> > Soon there will we wrist-watches that surf the web.  What are we
> > going to do?  Try and put OS/2 on those wrist-watches?
> >
> > get real.
>
> Are you going to try and put Windows 2000 on those wrist watches?
>
> get real
>
what is windows 2000?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  09-Nov-99 23:04:21
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Peter Ammon <[e-mail]>

"Jason R." wrote:
>
> Uhh, who the hell wants an OS with no real, widespread apps?

Yes, that is the point.  The applications barrier to entry is the
reason that Windows retains its dominance, not because of any real
superiority in the OS ITSELF.

>  Windows
> _should_ be the dominant OS because it's easier for the clueless masses to
> learn one environment.

Explain why BeOS shouldn't be, or Mac OS shouldn't be, or Linux
shouldn't be, then.

>
> Windows has the desktop market because it is, bitter nerds or no bitter
> nerds, the best and _only_ real choice for 95% of all desktops.

Bah.  It's the best for some.  The best for 95%?  Yeah right.  How
many newbie computer users really know what's the best for them?

>  Other OS's
> have their place on the server in many situations.  There exists competition
> (again - like it or not) in every market in which MS competes.

So?  The point is that there is not as much competition as there
should be or would be had Microsoft not abused their monopoly power.

>
> The findings of fact are a joke.  Things are the only way they can be.

Pessimist.  Those who don't use Windows know better.

>  The
> browser belongs with the OS as much as the GUI does or the user management
> software does.

Did you think this way before Microsoft superglued IE to the OS?  Do
you think it defines a "trend" because it's what Microsoft is doing?

>  That they ding MS for the IE fiasco completely invalidates
> anything else they say.  It's like a physicist claiming the Earth is 5000
> years old then saying 'Now listen as I explain gravity'.

I don't understand this.  What "IE fiasco?"  Did you even read the
findings of fact?  (You bet I did...every page!)

-Peter

--
The Shame Eliminator: http://shameeliminator.cjb.net

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                 09-Nov-99 23:07:20
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (The Lord Of Lemmings)

In article <rr5W3.4941$[e-mail]>, "Jason R."
<[e-mail]> wrote:

>Uhh, who the hell wants an OS with no real, widespread apps?  Windows
>_should_ be the dominant OS because it's easier for the clueless masses to
>learn one environment.
>
>Windows has the desktop market because it is, bitter nerds or no bitter
>nerds, the best and _only_ real choice for 95% of all desktops.  Other OS's
>have their place on the server in many situations.  There exists competition
>(again - like it or not) in every market in which MS competes.
>
>The findings of fact are a joke.  Things are the only way they can be.  The
>browser belongs with the OS as much as the GUI does or the user management
>software does.  That they ding MS for the IE fiasco completely invalidates
>anything else they say.  It's like a physicist claiming the Earth is 5000
>years old then saying 'Now listen as I explain gravity'.

Here's a new one -- claiming that MS has a natural monopoly.  Think much?

--
|        Scientia Claus, Lord Of Lemmings <[e-mail]>          |
|"The Library is a sphere whose exact center is any one of its hexagons|
|   and whose circumference is inaccessible." -- Jorge Luis Borges     |
|"One feels as if one is dissolved and merged into nature." -- Einstein|

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         10-Nov-99 03:17:24
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Reality check

From: [e-mail] (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:

> If you can answer a question with a question, then so can I, which I did
> (see previous post).

The problem is that your questions don't supply an answer the way mine
have, Curtis.  For example, if I ask someone "What does two plus two
equal?", does the question "Are strawberries in season?" answer the
question?

> I understand the difference just fine;

Obviously not.

> I simply inferred that which is implied by your behavior.

See what I mean about your inability (= "inept") to understand the
difference?

> In the universal sense, this may be true, depending on what you mean by
> "I implied it."

I wrote "doesn't mean I implied it", Curtis.

> I am not saying that *YOU* deliberately *implied* anything by any
> specific statement you made, Dave,

Then why are you accusing me of implying something that I did not imply?

> only that your overall behavior over the alleged invective of others
> implies something.

See what I mean about your inability (= "inept") to understand the
difference?

> Where have I allegedly used "invective," Dave?

You asked that once before, Curtis, and I reproduced the evidence.
Still suffering from reading comprehension problems?

CB] self-deluded

CB] technically inept

CB] stubborn beyond reason

CB] obstinate stupidity

CB] your buffoonery

CB] insult to stupid people

CB] you suffer from an "I am NOMAD! I am PERFECT!" syndrome

CB] assuming even a modicum of intelligence on your part

Need I go on, Curtis?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         10-Nov-99 02:30:24
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Bennie Nelson writes:

> Since you, Marty, and Dave have invested so many words in this hot
> topic, I'd be interested in reading a post from each of you that
> summarizes the points each has made.

There is only one relevant point, namely that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
implements Java 1.2 functionality.  That's been firmly established
using quotations from IBM and the actual JDK.  Everything else has
been a diversion.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               09-Nov-99 21:36:02
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

It's the software vendor who writes apps for operating systems or platforms.

If any one company bullies them around, then it's logical for the company to
either fight back or run to the government screaming 'foul'.

Since companies find it easier writing for one platform rather than four or
more, I sincerely doubt Microsoft is entirely to blame for the monopoly
they've created.  Stupidity on the part of competing platform/os makers and
the laziness of software vendors have not helped and these facts have not
even been taken into consideration.

David T. Johnson <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> If you are an OS/2 user and you've wondered why past OS/2 Software
> Developers have mysteriously folded their tents and ran, not walked,
> away from OS/2 (including IBM), here is a BIG reason:
>
> Judge Jackson's Second Finding Of Fact: 'It is Microsoft's corporate
> practice to pressure other firms to halt software development that
> either shows the potential to weaken the applications barrier to entry
> or competes directly with Microsoft's most cherished sofware products.'


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

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

From: [e-mail]                      09-Nov-99 20:28:18
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Peter Ammon <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> "Jason R." wrote:
> >
> > Uhh, who the hell wants an OS with no real, widespread apps?
>
> Yes, that is the point.  The applications barrier to entry is the
> reason that Windows retains its dominance, not because of any real
> superiority in the OS ITSELF.
>

What barrier are you referring to?  If it exists which windows platform are
you referring to?

> >  Windows
> > _should_ be the dominant OS because it's easier for the clueless masses
to
> > learn one environment.
>
> Explain why BeOS shouldn't be, or Mac OS shouldn't be, or Linux
> shouldn't be, then.
>

Because they aren't?

> >
> > Windows has the desktop market because it is, bitter nerds or no bitter
> > nerds, the best and _only_ real choice for 95% of all desktops.
>
> Bah.  It's the best for some.  The best for 95%?  Yeah right.  How
> many newbie computer users really know what's the best for them?
>

And how many IT managers know what's best for their new users?  Alot I'd say
since business users outnumber home users.

> >  Other OS's
> > have their place on the server in many situations.  There exists
competition
> > (again - like it or not) in every market in which MS competes.
>
> So?  The point is that there is not as much competition as there
> should be or would be had Microsoft not abused their monopoly power.
>

That remains to be proven.

> >
> > The findings of fact are a joke.  Things are the only way they can be.
>
> Pessimist.  Those who don't use Windows know better.
>

Objective opinion here.

> >  The
> > browser belongs with the OS as much as the GUI does or the user
management
> > software does.
>
> Did you think this way before Microsoft superglued IE to the OS?  Do
> you think it defines a "trend" because it's what Microsoft is doing?
>

How about because, KDE, Gnome, MacOS are also following.

> >  That they ding MS for the IE fiasco completely invalidates
> > anything else they say.  It's like a physicist claiming the Earth is
5000
> > years old then saying 'Now listen as I explain gravity'.
>
> I don't understand this.  What "IE fiasco?"  Did you even read the
> findings of fact?  (You bet I did...every page!)
>

There are several statements in that statement that indicate to me that the
Judge wasn't totally aware of the whole concept of IE, Explorer and
integration.  IE, His opinion was just too much in line with the Netscape
and Sun expressions that started this entire fiasco.

> -Peter
>
> --
> The Shame Eliminator: http://shameeliminator.cjb.net


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


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

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

From: [e-mail]                            10-Nov-99 03:42:04
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (Lee Riemenschneider)

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 23:01:05, "Vincent P. LaBella"
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > this is boring but please read and add flames
>
Boring or pathetic?  Let's see, you basically switched to NT, because
you don't use your PC for much, and you were too lazy to load OS/2 on
it.  For some reason, you think that we are all the same as you, so we
should follow suit.

BTW, if you really wanted to get with the times and only needed the
functionality you stated, why didn't you go with WebTV?

[Removed the crosspost to windows ng. Crossposting bad! ;-)]

Lee W. Riemenschneider
Die Hard Purdue Fan!
OS/2 User and Supporter

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: WinStar GoodNet, Inc. (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               09-Nov-99 22:59:28
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Bennie Nelson writes:
>
> > Since you, Marty, and Dave have invested so many words in this hot
> > topic, I'd be interested in reading a post from each of you that
> > summarizes the points each has made.
>
> There is only one relevant point,

And Dave has it right on the top of his head.

> namely that OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality.  That's
> been firmly established using quotations from IBM and the actual JDK.

And even more firmly debunked by examining the contents of the actual JDK
itself as delivered by IBM.

> Everything else has been a diversion.

Glad Tholen agrees that he was a major contributor in such a diversion.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                 10-Nov-99 03:54:22
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: The Words of the Judge

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >Bennie Nelson
> >I notice that Jeff felt that he should remove the compliment
> >I gave to him in my first post in this thread.
>
> I removed it because it was irrelevant to the discussion. Furthermore,
> I didn't come into the newsgroup fishing for compliments. That's not
> what the newsgroup is about.
>
> I'll leave the self-promotion to people like Tholen.

But posting derogatory remarks about someone else is quite acceptable
to you?  So, if I want to write anything negative about someone, that's
relevant and OK, but compliments are irrelevant.

That's rubbish, Jeff, and I hope you know that.  My first compliment
was quite relevant in that it was a rebuttal of derogatory remarks
that were directed towards you.

>
> >> >Bennie Nelson
> >> >He attempts to use anecdotal evidence from his own
> >> >experience to prove a universal point.
> >>
> >> You mean how like Tholen attempts to use anecdotal evidence from his
> >> own experience to totally dismiss the points of anyone who mentions
> >> that they've had a problem with OS/2?
> >>
> >> But of course, what you "obviously" fail to see is that I'm *hardly*
> >> the only OS/2 developer who feels that IBM and OS/2 developers were a
> >> bad match due to the fact that IBM is not a company that should be
> >> selling a niche market item, nor dealing with anyone other than
> >> Fortune 500 companies placing large orders for big ticket IBM
> >> products. As I pointed out before (and you've failed to grasp because
> >> you're only an enduser who *thinks* that he knows what is on the minds
> >> of OS/2 developers who dealt with IBM), this is a prevalent view among
> >> ex-OS/2 developers. You should actually talk to some of them, and read
> >> posts that they written on the subject, so you'll learn about this.
>
> >No, Jeff.  You missed my point.  Let me give a reverse example to try
> >and clarify what I said:
>
> >If I state that my experience with OS/2 has been very good and that
> >ALL PC users should therefore use OS/2, you would reject that point.
>
> No, *you* miss the point. I'm telling you that "my experience" as a
> developer who had to deal with IBM, and the conclusions that I've
> drawn from that about OS/2 and IBM, are *not* exclusive to me. In
> fact, they are very prevalent views among ex-OS/2 developers. *Talk*
> to some ex-OS/2 developers. Actually *LISTEN* to what they're saying
> instead of telling them what *you* believe they should be thinking
> about IBM and OS/2, and you'll see that your assumptions about them
> are incorrect (much like the judge, who apparently didn't even hear
> from any real OS/2 developers, such as Brad Wardell, doesn't know why
> ex-OS/2 developers left OS/2).

I'm not telling you what you should be thinking.  You also should not
expect us to believe that your experience is indicative of what all
former OS/2 developers experienced, either.

However, your experience with OS/2 software development and IBM is
not unique.  I'm convinced of that.  I also believe that too many
OS/2 developers were trampled by the IBM elephant.  How many is too
many?  Some might say one is too many.

>
> >In fact, my OS/2 experience has been very, very good, and I am quite
> >happy with using the OS for my business computing needs.
>
> You're not an OS/2 developer. You didn't have to deal with IBM's
> "support" for such people, and deal with the issues that they did.
> Your experience is irrrelevant to the reasons why people no longer
> develop for OS/2.

Agreed.

>
> >I do not
> >believe that my experience should be extrapolated to apply to all
> >other PC users, to most PC users, or even to many PC users.
>
> More to the point, your experience has no relevancy to why developers
> left OS/2. Your views about OS/2 and IBM do not even *consider* the
> perspectives of OS/2 developers. In fact, I don't believe that you
> have even met and talked to any OS/2 developers. You certainly haven't
> read their posts on the internet, for example, those posts to which I
> alluded from people like Wardell, Lennane, and other "major" ex-OS/2
> developers.

I've read many posts from OS/2 developers.  It is a subject that I been
interested in for years.

>
> >I don't pretend to have that much knowledge.
>
> Which is good because you apparently have no idea why OS/2 developers
> left OS/2.

I'm more aware of the situation than you give me credit for.

>
> >That is the error I believe
> >you made: you overreached in applying your points.
>
> My points are quite simply what many other OS/2 developers have openly
> stated about IBM and OS/2 and their troubles with both.

And I haven't denied your points.  I have simply said that your
experiences have not been shared by all OS/2 developers.

>
> >That said, I'd like to add that much of what you've said IN THIS
> >THREAD has been right on the mark.  I do not agree with all of what
> >you've said, but I do agree that IBM, big lumbering elephant that
> >it is, made decisions that squashed some mice (small OS/2 ISVs) in
> >the OS/2 field.
>
> And yet, none of this was even mentioned in the judge's "finding of
> fact", because the judge was never even informed about any of these
> things, and never even heard from the developers about whose
> intentions and experiences he drew erroneous conclusions.

Then that is the fault of Microsoft's legal team.

> >However, Microsoft has crushed many businesses in its path to success.
> >Remember Stacker?
>
> Stacker is not an ex-OS/2 developer who was allegedly "forced" to
> abandon OS/2 because of some supposed "MS monopoly". In fact, Stacker
> has no relevence to the issues that OS/2 developers faced.

The relevance is that IBM's actions and decisions contributed to
financial hardships for OS/2 developers.  Likewise, MS' actions and
decisions contributed to financial hardships for Windows developers.

And according to Judge Jackson, MS's actions and decisions forced
IBM into making decisions and taking actions that contributed to
financial hardships for OS/2 developers.

>
> >How many vendors of DOS and Windows utilities have
> >been swallowed whole by the Redmond giant?
>
> Vendors of DOS and Windows utilities are not ex-OS/2 developers who
> were allegedly "forced" to abandon OS/2 because of some supposed "MS
> monopoly". In fact, those developers have no relevence to the issues
> that OS/2 developers faced.

Judge Jackson disagrees.

>
> >A monopoly is not allowed to wield its power to destroy
> >competitors in the way MS has done.
>
> The judge was flat out incorrect in his assumptions about why
> developers abandoned products like OS/2. That's because he never heard
> from developers that actually invested in it, and then abandoned the
> platform (well, other than companies that never really did consider it
> a significant product, and merely paid it cheap lip service... such as
> IBM... or Netscape who never even developed anything for OS/2 until
> years later when IBM tossed a floundering company a few bucks to do
> so. These were not OS/2 developers. These were primarily Windows
> developers who had incidental, lackluster, begrudging support for
> OS/2).
>
> >I only object to the universalist aspect of your point.
>
> That's because you are not aware of, and truly underestimate, the
> extent to which ex-OS/2 developers believe that IBM killed OS/2.

If I underestimate anything, it's your knowledge on the subject.  I
don't believe you have direct knowledge to support your claims.

>
> >I know
> >that what you described occurred all too often (once is too much in my
> >estimation).  IBM should not have made the about face it did.  They
> >had a good start in supporting games, etc, but it needed a lot of
> >work.  I remember when the Joystick driver came out.  I believe two
> >guys coded that, and IBM eventually supported for it.  Then the decision
> >came, (I guess someone remembered the "B" means Business) and OS/2 was
> >no longer a gaming platform.
>
> You appear to responding to someone else's points. I never said
> anything about games at all in my posts.

Actually, I was giving an example of OS/2 developers providing a product
in response to IBM's stated intentions for OS/2 (i.e., IBM intended OS/2
for games).  IBM did a 180; OS/2 is not for games.  The MMOS2 reference
is another example of that.  IBM's 180 left a lot of people out to dry.

>
> >And MMOS2 needs a lot of work.  It was a good start, though.
>
> I never said anything about MMOS2 either. Maybe the problem is that
> you're not sure who is saying what in this thread? In that case, you
> should reserve your judgments about who is "wrong" until such time as
> you verify who has said what.

See above.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         10-Nov-99 03:50:27
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (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:

> Good for you, Dave.

Do you feel better now, Curtis?

> Typical circular evasiveness on Dave's part.

Typical pontification on Curtis' part.

> Are you listening, Karel?  Bennie?  Still astounded by Dave's, uh,
> "logic?"

Moreso than yours, Curtis.  At least they should be.

> Uh, I quoted the word "irrelevant," Dave, which is to say, the word
> had no real meaning.

Your entire sentence does have real meaning, Curtis.

> Were it an admission, the word "irrelevant" would not have been
> quoted.

How would that have made a difference, Curtis, given your use of
"perhaps" and "but not"?

> On the contrary, but, par for the course, you ignored it.

On the contrary, I contradicted your evidence, Curtis.

> <SARCASM> Color me surprised </SARCASM>

Sarcasm is another often-used tactic when a person lacks a logical
argument.

> I didn't. You did.

Illogical, given that the discussion is about your inference.  I
can't infer for you, Curtis.

> Point number one: As above with the word "irrelevant," the word
> "logical" is quoted, because it has no real meaning.

As above with the sentence containing "irrelevant", the entire sentence
does have real meaning, Curtis.

> Point number two: Okay, I stand corrected:  I assumed logic on your
> part, but was later shown to be wrong in said assumption.

Where is this alleged later showing, Curtis?

> Therefore, I recant my earlier assumption.

You're erroneously presupposing that your assumption was shown to be
wrong, Curtis.

> Just did. Feel better, now?

How I feel is irrelevant, Curtis.  Do you feel better by having chosen
poorly?

> So you finally admit that you were wrong.

Where is this alleged admission, Curtis?  Still suffering from reading
comprehension problems?

> Finally.

Where is this alleged admission, Curtis?  Still suffering from reading
comprehension problems?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     09-Nov-99 20:57:26
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Kelly Robinson wrote:

> It's the software vendor who writes apps for operating systems or platforms.
>
> If any one company bullies them around, then it's logical for the company to
> either fight back or run to the government screaming 'foul'.
>
> Since companies find it easier writing for one platform rather than four or
> more, I sincerely doubt Microsoft is entirely to blame for the monopoly
> they've created.

Since most of the Windows ISVs are now out of business it is a moot point.  MS
also has a monopoly in desktop applications for their monopoly OS.

Who cares about making Windows apps for the remaining, obscure product niches
when there's a gold rush developing OS neutral e-businesses?   There are a
host
of new productivity applications all designed to run over the web.  Is anyone
doing serious Win32 development outside of Redmond WA?

Hello?! ......  I didn't  think so.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     09-Nov-99 21:02:18
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: bye-bye os/2

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Kelly Robinson wrote:

> Our opinions differ slightly, but the end result is the same.  OS/2 is dead.
>
> I'm more likely to blame the software makers since they don't want to be
> bothered with the effort to write for non-Windows/PC platforms.  This is
> what they wanted  long before the Mac and Amiga came out.

Go ahead and blame ISVs.  Soneone has to because a Federal Judge blamed MS.
That SOB is getting all the press attention.   Try posting with some
expletives
-- it draws more attention.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            10-Nov-99 00:23:06
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Where is Warpzilla

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] says...
>Not to long ago, someone claimed that Warpzilla was ahead of every other
>Mozilla port.
>
>While, according to AOL, Communicator 5.0 will beta next month. I guess at
the
>point we'll see of Warpzilla truly is ahead of the pack or just another
dashed
>hope.
>

Whoops!! Make that "where"!!

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         10-Nov-99 04:56:26
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Vincent P. LaBella writes:

>>> Soon there will we wrist-watches that surf the web.  What are we
>>> going to do?  Try and put OS/2 on those wrist-watches?
>>>
>>> get real.

>> Are you going to try and put Windows 2000 on those wrist watches?
>>
>> get real

> what is windows 2000?

You mean you don't know?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                   10-Nov-99 01:41:17
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: The Words of the Judge

From: [e-mail] (Eric Bennett)

In article <05C6FUhLDNUU-pn2-RLzhCtYdCdx9@localhost>, [e-mail]
(William Sonna) wrote:

> On Sat, 6 Nov 1999 22:49:56, [e-mail] (Eric Bennett) wrote:
>
> > In article <05C6FUhLDNUU-pn2-LdReiGQIpkvx@localhost>, [e-mail]
> > (William Sonna) wrote:
> >
> >
> > > This is only a brief exerpt, but it looks very significant in terms of
> > > his finding Microsoft a monopoly.  And it looks like the Microsoft may
> > > have made a major strategic blunder when they convinced IBM to back
> > > away from marketing OS/2 to consumers.
> >
> > Unfortunately they *didn't* convince IBM to back away.  IBM told them to
> > bug off.
> >
> > --
> > Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
> > Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
> >
> > Drawing on my fine command of the language, I said nothing.
> > -Robert Benchley
>
> IBM told Microsoft to bug off,  and this is unfortunate? I don't
> understand.

Unfortunately for the validity of his argument.

--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology

Microsoft╣s technical skills in developing innovative and robust
software do not strike fear into the hearts of anyone except its
customers.  -Eric Bender, PC World

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Ho You Kong Fan Club (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          10-Nov-99 06:51:15
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>David H. McCoy
>So, we now have JavaBlend in Solaris and NT flavors? Isn't OS/2 the premiere
>platform?

Only in the minds of OS/2 Advocates... and no one wants to go THERE.
heh.

>And where Realplayer has released 7.0? What are the odds of a Win16 version?

Oh but I'm *sure* that it's going to run under that ODIOUS project, or
whatever it's called.

No wait! "We don't need it. Our computers run fine and we don't
believe in upgrading them." That's the OS/2 mantra circa 1999.

>Let the spin...begin!

Oh yes! Let's hear a "finding of fact" on what happened to the above
support for "the premiere Java platform". Yes, let's hear the excuses
from IBM and Sun why THEY *refuse* to support OS/2.

Ah well, it looks like IBM sold OS/2 users the Brooklyn Bridge YET
AGAIN when telling them that IBM was committed to making OS/2 the
premiere Java platform.... and OS/2 advocates actually believed
something that came out of the mouth of an IBM employee.

You have to wonder if IBM hires an employee to go around and
surreptiously tape pieces of paper to the backs of OS/2 Advocates that
read "Kick Me"

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     09-Nov-99 21:26:03
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


"Vincent P. LaBella" wrote:

> On 10 Nov 1999, Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> > Vincent P. LaBella writes:
> >
> > > Soon there will we wrist-watches that surf the web.  What are we
> > > going to do?  Try and put OS/2 on those wrist-watches?
> > >
> > > get real.
> >
> > Are you going to try and put Windows 2000 on those wrist watches?
> >
> > get real
> >
> what is windows 2000?

The replacement for NT 4.0 and it is due in Feb 2000. Cost to you...$149
and several hours of non stop installation.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                09-Nov-99 23:22:26
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: New Issue of OS/2 e-Zine!

From: "Christopher B. Wright" <[e-mail]>

The November issue of OS/2 e-Zine! is now online:

http://www.os2ezine.com

In this issue:

Software/Hardware reviews
A look at "Judgement Day"
Warp Expo West
Warpstock
and more!

Christopher B. Wright ([e-mail])
Interim Editor In Chief, OS/2 e-Zine!


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               09-Nov-99 21:38:14
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Here's a revelation

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

I've used BeOS.   Be is the name of the company and BeOS is their product.

I used to say such childish bullshit ("Well, in Amiga we do it like
this...") when I went from Amiga to OS/2.  Just about all the other people
who left Amiga when commodore died looked at me is if I were some sort of
nit-wit (I was pro-Os/2 at the time) because they went to a PC with
Microsoft OSes on it or, God forbid, the Crapintosh.  Yes, even Windows 3.1
garners more respect out of me than the Crapintosh.

Mirage Media <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many people here running Warp have
> also started using Be? While at Warpstock Europe last month, I noticed
> several people sporting Be t-shirts. Also, in the Be newsgroups, people
> are constantly saying "well, in OS/2 we do it like this....


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     09-Nov-99 21:29:13
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


"Jason R." wrote:

> Uhh, who the hell wants an OS with no real, widespread apps?  Windows
> _should_ be the dominant OS because it's easier for the clueless masses to
> learn one environment.

Amen brother. Now tell the owner of Windows to stop breaking anti-trust  laws
and messing with the natural order of the world.

And we should all drive Ford Explorers. It is easier for the clueless masses
of
the world to learn one vehicle and dashboard layout.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               09-Nov-99 23:33:24
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: More Boring Reading Comprehension Problems and Associated Idiocy by

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Consistent with Curtis Bass' recent justification for his snippage:

And consistent with Tholen's hypocritical whining about removing context:
> I am deleting all but the most recent new text.
>
> Curtis Bass writes:
>
> > That is correct.
>
> Good to see you admit to your dishonesty, Curtis.

And speaking of dishonesty...

> > In the quote above, Mike said, "I was able to read the file with
> > WinZip."
>
> And in that quote, Mike said:  "The first file in classes.zip
> (alphabetically) is AbstractMethodError.class.  The last one is
> ZipOutputStream.class."
>
> Now, how would he know that unless he read the file classes.zip?

And how could he have known how much classes.zip was compressed, or its CRC-32
if he read the file classes.zip?  Apparently Tholen is completely ignorant of
how WinZip works.  Timbol (or anyone else capable of passing the third grade)
can view the contents of a Zip file within a Zip file without extracting
anything, with a simple double-click in WinZip.

> > That yo would claim that he was referring to classes.zip is
> > illogical,
>
> Balderdash, Curtis, given that he specifically referred to the first
> and last entries in that file.  Clearly he is referring to classes.zip.

And given that he referred to the compressed size of classes.zip, he was
clearly referring to JAVAINUF.EXE, which is the only place in which such
information is stored.  How embarassing that Tholen doesn't understand this
concept.

> > for he would have no earthly reason to make that claim of a ZIP
> > file, Dave.
>
> ???

Obvious evidence of reading comprehension problems.

> No reason to claim that he used an unzipper to unzip a zip file???

Further evidence of reading comprehension problems (as if further evidence
were
needed).  Perhaps if Dave hadn't hypocritically removed the context from this
statement he'd have a chance (albiet slim) of comprehending it.

> > IOW, it is axiomatic that classes.zip, being a zip file, could be read
> > by WinZip.
>
> Sounds to me like an "earthly reason", Curtis.

Sound to me like someone dishonestly destroyed context, Curtis.

> > But the contention is over whether JAVAINUF.EXE could be read in a
> > non-OS/2 environment.
>
> On the contrary, the contention is over whether WinZip could make the
> missing bytes in my copy of javainuf.exe magically appear, Curtis.

Perhaps that's Tholen's idiotic contention, but by his own admittance, this is
just a mere diversion.  It seems he almost enjoys the taste of his foot in his
mouth.

"There is only one relevant point, namely that OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java
1.2 functionality.  That's been firmly established using quotations from IBM
and the actual JDK.  Everything else has been a diversion."
- Dave Tholen

> > Ergo, the logical deduction is that Mike was referring to JAVAINUF.EXE
> > when he said, "I was able to read the file with WinZip."
>
> Illogical, given that the specific excerpts contained in that quotation
> are from classes.zip, Curtis.

"There is only one relevant point, namely that OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java
1.2 functionality.  That's been firmly established using quotations from IBM
and the actual JDK.  Everything else has been a diversion."
- Dave Tholen

> > Why indeed?
>
> Yet that's exactly what you're doing.

"There is only one relevant point, namely that OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java
1.2 functionality.  That's been firmly established using quotations from IBM
and the actual JDK.  Everything else has been a diversion."
- Dave Tholen

> > Yet you keep doing so
>
> Typical pontification.  I'm not the one who ignored the specific
> references to AbstractMethodError.class and ZipOutputStream.class.

Dave just ignored the significance of these references, not the references
themselves.

> Where did he read those?  Why, in classes.zip, of course.

And where does one find the compression ratio of classes.zip?  Why, in
JAVAINUF.EXE, of course.

> > . . . even after reposting it over and over again.
>
> And you still haven't comprehended it.  Amazing.  Also "inept" on
> your part.

Take it from Dave:  he knows what it's like to be inept.  Though he has
demonstrated quite a bit of prowess at shoving his foot in his mouth.

> > Let's have yet another look:
>
> Why, Curtis?  Didn't you recently write:
>
> 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.

And didn't Dave recently write:
"There is only one relevant point, namely that OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java
1.2 functionality.  That's been firmly established using quotations from IBM
and the actual JDK.  Everything else has been a diversion."
- Dave Tholen

> > The above information can only be obtained from successfully reading
> > JAVAINUF.EXE.
>
> The references to AbstractMethodError.class and ZipOutputStream.class
> can only be obtained from successfully reading classes.zip, Curtis.
>
> > Reading classes.zip would not yield any of the above info.
>
> Reading javainuf.exe would not yield the references to
> AbstractMethodError.class and ZipOutputStream.class, Curtis.

"There is only one relevant point, namely that OS/2 Java 1.1.8 implements Java
1.2 functionality.  That's been firmly established using quotations from IBM
and the actual JDK.  Everything else has been a diversion."
- Dave Tholen

> > Mike ***SUBSEQUENTLY*** reads classes.zip,
>
> On the contrary, Curtis, Timbol was talking about classes.zip long
> before he mentioned javainuf.exe; why do you think I had to try several
> times to get him to indicate which top-level file contained classes.zip?

Dave answered his own question best:  "... Everything else has been a
diversion."

> > thereby refuting Tholen's claim that one had to run OS/2 in order to
> > extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.
>
> Your illogic above doesn't refute me, Curtis.

Illogic defines Dave; it doesn't refute him.

> > but frankly, I don't think he has enough sense to even know
> > embarrassment.
>
> How ironic, coming from the person who doesn't know embarrassment.

Why would Curtis know embarrassment?  None has been sent his way.  Dave is
hoarding all of the embarrassment to himself.

> > I resign this thread,
>
> I'm not surprised.

Yup, Dave's diversions finally paid off in boring yet another person with a
different opinion than his into submission.  No one is surprised by this
dishonest, underhanded, and cowardly tactic.

> > not because I have "lost" (on the contrary)
>
> You're claiming that you won, Curtis?

No need.  It is obvious.

> > but because even I get bored of arguing with an insane person
> > after a while.
>
> Typical invective, as expected from someone who lacks a logical
> argument.

How ironic, coming from someone who both hypocritically spews forth his own
"invective" and also lacks a logical argument (among other things).

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         10-Nov-99 04:36:18
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (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:

> Right.

Glad you realize that, Curtis.

> The fact that Mike (the alleged "liar"),

Nothing alleged about it, Curtis.  I've proven it each time he's lied.

> Marty and I claimed that we could extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE
> using WinZip,

Irrelevant, given that those claims came *after* I posted the error
message from InfoZip, Curtis.  You *still* can't keep the chronology
straight.

> and posted proof of this (which you ignored),

On the contrary, Curtis, I explained why it is irrelevant, given the
way you are ignoring the chronology.

> you could dismiss it as "irrelevant" because it didn't deal with
> your corrupt copy of the file,

I said it was incomplete, Curtis, not corrupt.  I have no evidence
to support a claim that any of the bytes are incorrect.

> but that is not analogous to the double-chevroned statements above,
> and the one below:

Irrelevant, given that I didn't say they are analogous, Curtis.  Once
again, you've got the chronology screwed up so badly that you have
misidentified the portion that is truly analogous.

> Interesting "logic," Dave.

Interesting reading comprehension problem on your part, Curtis.

> Where did you ever admit that your "measurements weren't valid,"
> Dave? You have insisted that Mike's, Marty's and my "results weren't
> valid" because we weren't using your "voltmeter."

What I really insisted is that WinZip is not superior to InfoZip in
its ability to unzip a zip archive, Curtis.  It was when you pointed
to WinZip's success in unzipping javainuf.exe that I noted your failure
to use my copy of javainuf.exe, Curtis.  See what I mean about your
inability (= "inept") to keep the chronology straight?

> You keep bringing this up, but it ultimately makes no difference (see
> above).

On the contrary, it makes plenty of difference, Curtis.  There was
nothing "inept" on my part, contrary to your claim.  Where did you
admit that I'm not "inept"?

> I have shown that you posted youor error messages ***as a response
> to*** Mike's claim of extracting the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE
> without running OS/2.

Of course, Curtis.  That's because I was posting contradictory
evidence.  His claim is what triggered my posting, Curtis.  Amazing
that you finally got one piece of the chronology correct, but for
some reason, you're acting as if I've denied it.

> You dimiss this because "Mike is a known liar,"

Not only that, Curtis, but also because I had evidence that contradicted
his claim.

> which has absolutely nothing to do with the ***fact*** that his claim
> was ***truthful*** and ***accurate,***

On the contrary, Timbol's history of lying and my contradictory
evidence have everything to with it, Curtis.

> And that your claim was ***erroneous.***

On the contrary, the error message from InfoZip was genuine, Curtis.

> It's interesting that you would claim Mike to be a "known liar" (which
> can qualify as slander in this public forum)

I've proven that he's lied, Curtis.  Slander involves making false
charges, not truthful ones.  It seems that you have the definitions
of "invective" and "slander" mixed up.  If a statement is truthful,
it cannot be slander, but it can still be invective.

> yet choose to "debate" with him anyway.

To correct his misinformation, Curtis.

> If he is a "know liar," then when do you decide to believe
> what he is saying?

Where did I decide to believe what he is saying, Curtis?  I simply
note what he writes.

> The answer, of course, is that you ***ONLY*** believe him when it
> suits your "argument," and choose ***NOT*** to believe him when
> ***THAT*** suits your "argument."

Wrong again, Curtis.  Now, that's an example of a false charge,
which is closer to slander than what you pointed to above.

> Let me get this straight . . .

I wish you would, Curtis.

> 1) You considered Mike's claim that he could
>    extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE to be
>    a "lie" because he is a "known liar."

Wrong again, Curtis.

> 2) You run JAVAINUF.EXE in a DOS session and
>    get a "This program must be run in OS/2"
>    message.

Reading comprehension makes cameo appearance.

> 3) You try unzip.exe on JAVAINUF.EXE and get
>    a bunch of error messages, and cannot
>    extract the contents of the file that way.

I never described the output as "a bunch of error messages", Curtis.

> 4) The other files you downloaded from IBM
>    executed in OS/2 just fine.

Reading comprehension makes cameo appearance.

> 5) You conclude that one has to run OS/2 in
>    order to extract the contents of
>    JAVAINUF.EXE, even though you actually
>    haven't done so yourself.

javainuf.exe is one of two runtime environments provided by IBM,
Curtis.  I actually did run my choice of runtime environment.  Why
should anyone expect a difference in extraction success between the
two?

> 6) When Mike posts his "lie," you respond
>    with the InfoZip error messages.

Are your numberings supposed to be indicative of the chronology,
Curtis?  What's the difference between #6 and #1?

> 7) Because you respond to Mike's claim re-
>    garding WinZip with your failed attempt
>    using InfoZip, and because you made the
>    erroneous statement that one had to use
>    OS/2 in order to extract the contents of
>    JAVAINUF.EXE, I state that you are inept.

And you've never been able to prove it.  As usual, invective gets
used in place of a logical argument.

> 8) At some point, Marty tells you that he
>    was successful using unzip.exe on the
>    JAVAINUF.EXE file.

And do you remember at which point that occurred, Curtis?  You've had
so much trouble keeping the chronology straight, I wouldn't count on it.

> 9) You conclude that your file is "incomplete."

And I verified it by downloading more copies of the file, Curtis,
and noting the different file lengths.  It took a total of five
downloads before I got two files with identical contents.  Yet
you somehow blame me for the download failure, just like blaming
someone for burning out a light bulb when flipping the switch on.

> 10) When Marty or I claim that WinZip can
>     process JAVAINUF.EXE properly, you dis-
>     miss it because WinZip can't process
>     your "incomplete" file.

Thereby contradicting the claim that WinZip is somehow superior to
InfoZip in its ability to unzip a zip archive.

> 11) You state that all unzip tools should
>     have the same result.

Simply because none can make the proper bytes magically appear,
Curtis.

> So, the bottom line is that you chose to ignore Mike's data,

On the contrary, I did not ignore it, Curtis.  I contradicted it using
my own data.

> and therefore came to an erroneous conclusion, but that is somehow
> "okay."

Where did I say that, Curtis?  On the contrary, I stated that there is
nothing "inept" about the conclusion, thereby contradicting your claim.

> When I come to a "conclusion" using all data that I have at my disposal,
> ignoring none, that is not okay,

When your conclusion is illogical, Curtis.  Remember, data that became
available *after* you reached your conclusion happens to be irrelevant.

> even though you initially withheld data

Where did I withhold data, Curtis?

> (the fact of your file's being "incomplete") until after I made my
> "conclusion."

Liar.  I never withheld any data until after your made your conclusion.
See what I mean about you getting the chronology screwed up?

> But that is also "okay."

Where did I say that, Curtis?  On the contrary, I stated that there is
nothing "inept" about the conclusion, thereby contradicting your claim.

> Finally, you presupposed Mike to be lying,

Incorrect, Curtis.  I had evidence that contradicted his claim, thus
no presupposition was involved.

> but were later shown to be in error in said presupposition,

I just finished telling you why there was no presupposition involved,
Curtis.  Comprehend it.

> yet still cling to the erroneous conclusion to which you arrived
> based on said erroneous presupposition.

I just finished telling you why there was no presupposition involved,
Curtis.  Comprehend it.

> And that is also "okay,"

Where did I say that, Curtis?  On the contrary, I stated that there is
nothing "inept" about the conclusion, thereby contradicting your claim.

> and certainly not "inept."

Glad that you finally realize it, Curtis.

> It's so clear now.

Somehow I doubt it.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     09-Nov-99 20:46:09
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Here's a revelation

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Kelly Robinson wrote:

> I've used BeOS.   Be is the name of the company and BeOS is their product.
>
> I used to say such childish bullshit ("Well, in Amiga we do it like
> this...") when I went from Amiga to OS/2.  Just about all the other people
> who left Amiga when commodore died looked at me is if I were some sort of
> nit-wit (I was pro-Os/2 at the time) because they went to a PC with
> Microsoft OSes on it or, God forbid, the Crapintosh.  Yes, even Windows 3.1
> garners more respect out of me than the Crapintosh.

Getting respect from someone who says "crapintosh" .... I'll have none of
that.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                10-Nov-99 00:38:22
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Were is Warpzilla?

From: "Christopher B. Wright" <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 21:37:25 -0500, David H. McCoy wrote:

>Not to long ago, someone claimed that Warpzilla was ahead of every other
>Mozilla port.
>
>While, according to AOL, Communicator 5.0 will beta next month. I guess at
the
>point we'll see of Warpzilla truly is ahead of the pack or just another
dashed
>hope.
>--

Since they depend on the Gecko work for the rendering engine, I don't see how
they _could_ be ahead of all the others... unless you mean people porting
Gecko to a native platform.

Last I heard, Warpzilla had fallen a bit behind... they were having trouble
getting Netscape to set them up with whatever method the porters use to
officially submit code, and in the process they missed a release or two. They
were planning to skip one and leapfrog ahead to the next... not sure how that
went after that and I haven't checked in the last month and a half.

And I wasn't following closely before, b/c I'm not a programmer and it looked
all greek to me. But I'd played with alpha 7 or 8, it actually _did_
browse... it also crashed... it was a 50/50 kind of thing.


Christopher B. Wright ([e-mail])
"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
       - Edward Young


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     09-Nov-99 20:49:03
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>

I found a bug  -- Java script does not display entry fields for my
credit union's web site.  I keep v2.02 around - it works.

Lee Riemenschneider wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 02:00:33, [e-mail] (Lee
> Riemenschneider) wrote:
> [SNIP]
> Ranting aside, I think the developers did a great job on Netscape/2
> 4.61. :-)
>
> Lee W. Riemenschneider
> Die Hard Purdue Fan!
> OS/2 User and Supporter

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  09-Nov-99 23:57:07
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Peter Ammon <[e-mail]>

Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
> Peter Ammon <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> > "Jason R." wrote:
> > >
> > > Uhh, who the hell wants an OS with no real, widespread apps?
> >
> > Yes, that is the point.  The applications barrier to entry is the
> > reason that Windows retains its dominance, not because of any real
> > superiority in the OS ITSELF.
> >
>
> What barrier are you referring to?  If it exists which windows platform are
> you referring to?

The one that's mentioned 68 times in the Findings of Facts.  Maybe
you should read that?

http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html

>
> > >  Windows
> > > _should_ be the dominant OS because it's easier for the clueless masses
> to
> > > learn one environment.
> >
> > Explain why BeOS shouldn't be, or Mac OS shouldn't be, or Linux
> > shouldn't be, then.
> >
>
> Because they aren't?

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!

>
> > >
> > > Windows has the desktop market because it is, bitter nerds or no bitter
> > > nerds, the best and _only_ real choice for 95% of all desktops.
> >
> > Bah.  It's the best for some.  The best for 95%?  Yeah right.  How
> > many newbie computer users really know what's the best for them?
> >
>
> And how many IT managers know what's best for their new users?  Alot I'd say
> since business users outnumber home users.

Nobody is punishing Microsoft because they control the desktop
market.  They are being punished because they use that control to
restrict innovation in other companies that might jeopardize that
monopoly.  Although I dispute the fact that Windows is the best
choice for 95% of users, whether it is or not is not relevant to the
case.  What IS relevant is how Microsoft ensures that Windows
REMAINS the best choice, by stomping down all other possibilities.
See the bit about Netscape and Java in the Findings of Fact, for examples.

>
> > >  Other OS's
> > > have their place on the server in many situations.  There exists
> competition
> > > (again - like it or not) in every market in which MS competes.
> >
> > So?  The point is that there is not as much competition as there
> > should be or would be had Microsoft not abused their monopoly power.
> >
>
> That remains to be proven.


The judge decided, after the long drawn out trial and hearing both
sides, that:

"Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling
innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that
exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft."

What kind of proof are you looking for, exactly?

>
> > >
> > > The findings of fact are a joke.  Things are the only way they can be.
> >
> > Pessimist.  Those who don't use Windows know better.
> >
>
> Objective opinion here.

So you think that we are doomed to have a single computer company
breaking the metaphorical kneecaps of all who dare oppose it?  I
hope I never get to that level of sheepdom.

>
> > >  The
> > > browser belongs with the OS as much as the GUI does or the user
> management
> > > software does.
> >
> > Did you think this way before Microsoft superglued IE to the OS?  Do
> > you think it defines a "trend" because it's what Microsoft is doing?
> >
>
> How about because, KDE, Gnome, MacOS are also following.

Explain.  I don't see Apple integrating their own, or even any,
browser with the Mac OS.  I don't see that in Gnome either, which I
have used.  I haven't used KDE, so I can't comment.

And besides, even if you still believe that that is the case, then
how do you explain Microsoft's conduct towards Netscape, where they
discouraged developers to write their applications using the APIs
that Netscape exposed?  Are you saying that Microsoft is bucking the
trend that they created?  The simplest explanation, and the one that
the judge decided is correct, is that the only reason they (cough)
"integrated" IE with Windows was to, as Alchin (a senior executive
in Microsoft) put it:


"You see browser share as job 1. . . . I do not feel we are going to
win on our current path. We are not leveraging Windows from a
marketing perspective and we are trying to copy Netscape and make IE
into a platform. We do not use our strength -- which is that we have
an installed base of Windows and we have a strong OEM shipment
channel for Windows. Pitting browser against browser is hard since
Netscape has 80% marketshare and we have <20%. . . . I am convinced
we have to use Windows -- this is the one thing they don't have. . .
. We have to be competitive with features, but we need something
more -- Windows integration.

If you agree that Windows is a huge asset, then it follows quickly
that we are not investing sufficiently in finding ways to tie IE and
Windows together. This must come from you. . . . Memphis
[Microsoft's code-name for Windows 98] must be a simple upgrade, but
most importantly it must be killer on OEM shipments so that Netscape
never gets a chance on these systems."

>
> > >  That they ding MS for the IE fiasco completely invalidates
> > > anything else they say.  It's like a physicist claiming the Earth is
> 5000
> > > years old then saying 'Now listen as I explain gravity'.
> >
> > I don't understand this.  What "IE fiasco?"  Did you even read the
> > findings of fact?  (You bet I did...every page!)
> >
>
> There are several statements in that statement that indicate to me that the
> Judge wasn't totally aware of the whole concept of IE, Explorer and
> integration.  IE, His opinion was just too much in line with the Netscape
> and Sun expressions that started this entire fiasco.

Then take it from the horse's mouth.  I gave you the quote above.

-Peter

--
The Shame Eliminator: http://shameeliminator.cjb.net

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         10-Nov-99 04:54:07
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>> Your repeated requests for clarification of the term "multi-level"
>>> indicate a reading comprehension problem,

>> Incorrect; rather it indicates the lack of any explanation from you
>> regarding your meaning.

> Wrong.

Incorrect.

> My meaning is clear;

Obviously not.

> its opacity to you is merely due to your reading comprehension problem.

Illogical, given that I can't comprehend something that isn't there to
be comprehended.

>>> given that the meaning I used is clear.

>> Obviously not, Lucien, otherwise it wouldn't have been necessary to
>> ask for an explanation of your meaning.

> Wrong.

Incorrect.

> You ask for clarification merely because you cannot comprehend the
> meaning of my usage of the term.

Illogical, given that I can't comprehend something that isn't there to
be comprehended.

>>>> That's rather ironic, coming from someone who doesn't even realize
>>>> the irrelevance of his own thesis and who can't comprehend the
>>>> relevance of two simple tests.

>>> Your "tests" demonstrate nothing relevant.

>> On the contrary, my tests demonstrate that your argument is wrong.

> They do nothing of the kind.

Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.  So far, you've simply
deleted them every single time, occasionally pontificating the way
you did above.

>> That's quite relevant.

> Wrong. See above.

Incorrect.  See my response above.

>>> They are merely nonsense laden with invective,

>> Where is the alleged invective in those two simple tests, Lucien?

> Read the "tests".

Here they are, Lucien.

Test #1:

] #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 #2:

] #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.

Now, where is the alleged invective?

>> Where is the alleged nonsense in those two simple tests, Lucien?

> Read the "tests".

Here they are, Lucien.

Test #1:

] #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 #2:

] #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.

Now, where is the alleged invective?

>> Did you even bother to read them before you deleted them?

> Irrelevant.

On the contrary, it's quite relevant to your claim of the presence of
invective in the two tests, Lucien.

>>>> I've told you that it is not clear to me,

>>> That it is not clear to you is obvious, but that is merely a side
>>> effect of your reading comprehension problem.

>> Illogical, given that you haven't provided any explanation of your
>> meaning to comprehend, Lucien.

> My meaning is clear;

Obviously not, Lucien.

> reread the statements.

That won't make your explanation magically appear, Lucien.

>>>> you simply point me to someone else's meaning and claim that it's
>>>> the same as yours, thus no independent comparison of meanings can
>>>> be done by me.

>>> Wrong.

>> Illogical; how can a comparison be made of two things when only one
>> of the two is avaiable?

> Illogical question,

On the contrary, there is nothing illogical about the question, Lucien.

> given that both meanings are available and clear.

Incorrect, Lucien.  Your meaning is not available at all.

> Thus, a comparison can be made.

You're erroneously presupposing the presence of your meaning, Lucien.

>>>>>> The underlying ambiguity of what, Lucien?

>>>>> The underlying ambiguity WRT quantification; can't you read?

>>>> I can't read what isn't there, Lucien.

>>> That you cannot comprehend the statements is obvious.

>> I can't comprehend explanatory statements that haven't been made,
>> Lucien.

> Indeed, you seem unable to comprehend very much at all in this
> exchange.

Yet another example of your pontification.

> Nonetheless, let's try again.

Let's try again to get you to understand the flaws in your argument.

> Here is your statement regarding the JDK sentence (emphasis mine):
>
> "The word 'implements' does allow for [[[either 'some' or
> 'all']]] functionality, [[[in the absence of any other
> information.]]]"

See what I mean about your reading comprehension problem, Lucien?
I've told you several times now that the above statement does not
concern the JDK sentence, and I've also told you why, namely because
the JDK sentence involves the presence of other information.  Yet
you simply delete that explanation and repeat your erroneous claims,
along with deleting the two simple tests that prove why you're wrong.

> Here is your statement regarding the JDK sentence (emphasis mine):
>
> "The word 'implements' does allow for [[[either 'some' or
> 'all']]] functionality, [[[in the absence of any other
> information.]]]"

Repeating yourself, Lucien?  Normally you reserve that spot for a
pasting of your thesis.

> Note the discussion of the ambiguity WRT quantification; also note the
> agreement between the two statements.

Of course the two statements agree; that's because they are the same
statement, Lucien.

How embarrassing for you.

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

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: [e-mail]                               10-Nov-99 00:55:09
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Now, where is the alleged invective?
> Now, where is the alleged invective?
> 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: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                     09-Nov-99 21:12:14
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


"Vincent P. LaBella" wrote:

> > this is boring but please read and add flames
>
> Hello
>
>         I was a long time OS/2 user, since 2.0 (pre service pack) and I
> just recently moved to NT.  I feel a need to share my experiences with
> OS/2 and why I liked it and why I'm not using it anymore.

Buy and install NT for $300+ and in Feb pay $149 more for the mandated W2K
update?!?  Sounds dumb to spend the money and time for the few months of usage
and then buy and do a second install of the W2K OS.

> I know some of you are thinking why not use OS/2? However, it takes time
> and effort to put OS/2 on a computer, and it doesn't do anything
> special that NT doesn't do.

It takes an hour -- if that's too much then the mandated W2K upgrade in
February is implausible.

OS/2 runs very well on hardware MS wouldn't even list a base for NT / W2K.
W2K is due Feb 2000 and is a 128MB, P300 class OS.


My suggestion is to run OS/2 until Feb and then buy W2K.  This will save you
$149 and hours installing the transitional NT 4.0.  :-O
You can then mail the $149 savings directly into MS as a charitable donation
to cover legal expenses OR you can keep the $149 and post an NT testimonial to
COOA.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     09-Nov-99 21:19:07
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: MS is a monopoly - but here is a legit questrion

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Lee Riemenschneider wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 19:00:19, [e-mail] (Mike Trettel) wrote:
>
> >                           Unfortunately (for MS) there's little incentive
> > for the DOJ to take any kind of half assed settlement offer-why should
> > they?  Judge Jackson has made it quite clear that the DOJ will get pretty
> > much whatever they want.
> [SNIP]
> >              Now due to arrogance and pride they're stuck in the mud with
> > very little short term options.
> >
> I'm sure the DOJ won't forget how Microsoft made a mockery of their last
> settlement on the predatory monopoly issue.  I'm also sure that the
> arrogance Microsoft showed at the start of this trial, calling the
> judge, DOJ lawyers, and Reno clueless and incompetent, will also come
> back to haunt them in any settlement talks.
> I remember a cartoon I saw in Infoworld(?) in which Bill Gates is
> mooning the judge, and the Microsoft lawyer is saying, "Now don't take
> this out of context your honor." :-)

http://www.sjmercury.com/svtech/columns/gillmor/docs/dg110999.htm

WHAT is it with Microsoft Corp. and federal judges?

The industrialized world is now familiar with U.S. District Judge Thomas
Penfield Jackson's slashing ``findings of fact'' in the antitrust case in
Washington, D.C. People are less familiar with another Microsoft case in
Utah, but the latter is beginning to look grim for the software company -- and
language in a recent ruling suggests Microsoft has alienated the judge in the
Utah case, too.



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

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

From: [e-mail]                      10-Nov-99 01:16:06
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1433590.html?tag=st.ne.ron.lthd.1003-200-
: 1433590


: So, we now have JavaBlend in Solaris and NT flavors? Isn't OS/2 the premiere

: platform?
: And where Realplayer has released 7.0? What are the odds of a Win16 version?

: Let the spin...begin!

http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4406.html

-RealNetworks announced today (Nov 8) that it will publish the source
-code to Real.com Take5. See:

Also in news:

http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4404.html

-So *please* do not yet start downloading Odin. We will announce it
-officialy the next few days and the web page will be up to date too.

-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 natively,
-as if they were intended to be OS/2 applications in the first place.


Jason

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               10-Nov-99 05:20:26
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
  David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Let the spin...begin!

Sure thing Dave, you first...

--
-Steven Hunter                *OS/2 Warp 4 * |
[e-mail] *AMD K6-2 400* |


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: [e-mail]                      10-Nov-99 01:11:00
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Were is Warpzilla?

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
: Not to long ago, someone claimed that Warpzilla was ahead of every other
: Mozilla port.

The oringal claim was made December 1, 1998, nearly a year ago.

http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc2569.html

-The Warpzilla team has released a new version, .002, of the OS/2 Mozilla
-port. It has numerous new features and bug fixes including JavaScript,
-CSS, and DOM. This release places the Warpzilla team ahead of all the
-other development teams, including the Win32 team. It can be found at

: While, according to AOL, Communicator 5.0 will beta next month. I
: guess at the
: point we'll see of Warpzilla truly is ahead of the pack or just
: another dashed
: hope.

Maybe they will get it out when they finish it?  I've been seen quoting
the above article, that they were ahead to people claiming Warpzilla was
never going to go anyhere, which is clearly not the case.

So many things have happen since then, that it is impossible to tell.

-Jason

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         10-Nov-99 06:16:26
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

David H. McCoy writes:

> So, we now have JavaBlend in Solaris and NT flavors?

From a mailing list:

   Since we had an accidental transmission of the Happy99 virus here,
   I figured it would be appropriate to let you know of a possibly
   dangerous email virus called "BubbleBoy".

   This new virus infects you computer without your need to read you
   email or open or run and attachment as you would have needed to do
   with Happy99.

   It seems this new virus attacks those of you using Micro$oft$
   Outlook Express primarily.

New viruses on the horizon for Windows users.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                           10-Nov-99 01:40:11
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <rr5W3.4941$[e-mail]>, on 11/10/99 at 03:15 AM,
   "Jason R." <[e-mail]> said:

> The findings of fact are a joke.  Things are the only way they can be.
> The browser belongs with the OS as much as the GUI does or the user
> management software does.  That they ding MS for the IE fiasco
> completely invalidates anything else they say.  It's like a physicist
> claiming the Earth is 5000 years old then saying 'Now listen as I
> explain gravity'.

Get your nose out of Bill's ass you fool. The findings are not a joke,
they are findings of fact in a major federal case. If you think they are
funny, you are a truly sick individual.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                          10-Nov-99 06:35:15
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: The Words of the Judge

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>> >Bennie Nelson
>> >I notice that Jeff felt that he should remove the compliment
>> >I gave to him in my first post in this thread.

>>Jeff Glatt
>>I removed it because it was irrelevant to the discussion. Furthermore,
>>I didn't come into the newsgroup fishing for compliments. That's not
>>what the newsgroup is about.

>> I'll leave the self-promotion to people like Tholen.

>But posting derogatory remarks about someone else is quite acceptable
>to you?

To quote your buddy Tholen "Reading comprehension problems, Bennie?" I
said that your compliments were irrelevant to the discussion.

>but compliments are irrelevant.

Yes, compliments are irrelevant to this discussion. The discussion
isn't about me. It's about developer's attitudes toward OS/2 and IBM,
and why OS/2 developers gave up on OS/2. I simply noted that a lot of
ex-OS/2 developers have echoed similiar sentiments about IBM and the
OS/2 market as I have.

And I note that those sentiments aren't even recognized, let alone
given any consideration, in the judge's uninformed "findings of fact".
Perhaps if the judge had actually talked to ex-OS/2 developers, he'd
know the real reason why they stopped supporting OS/2 rather than the
contrived reason IBM told the judge (and the contrived reason that MS'
competitors would prefer the judge to believe).

>My first compliment
>was quite relevant in that it was a rebuttal of derogatory remarks
>that were directed towards you.

The derogatory remarks were irrelevant as well. Furthermore, they came
from someone whose "opinions" I have no reason to give any credence
to, nor even respect, so they don't bother me in the least. You need
not worry about any sort of rebuttal to such inane, irrelevant
nonsense. I already addressed it.

>> >No, Jeff.  You missed my point.  Let me give a reverse example to try
>> >and clarify what I said:

>> >If I state that my experience with OS/2 has been very good and that
>> >ALL PC users should therefore use OS/2, you would reject that point.

>> No, *you* miss the point. I'm telling you that "my experience" as a
>> developer who had to deal with IBM, and the conclusions that I've
>> drawn from that about OS/2 and IBM, are *not* exclusive to me. In
>> fact, they are very prevalent views among ex-OS/2 developers. *Talk*
>> to some ex-OS/2 developers. Actually *LISTEN* to what they're saying
>> instead of telling them what *you* believe they should be thinking
>> about IBM and OS/2, and you'll see that your assumptions about them
>> are incorrect (much like the judge, who apparently didn't even hear
>> from any real OS/2 developers, such as Brad Wardell, doesn't know why
>> ex-OS/2 developers left OS/2).

>I'm not telling you what you should be thinking.  You also should not
>expect us to believe that your experience is indicative of what all
>former OS/2 developers experienced, either.

I don't expect you to merely believe it. I expect you to go out there
and actually talk to ex-OS/2 developers about IBM and OS/2, and learn
what they think. Start with Brad Wardell's history of OS/2. You'll
find plenty of evidence of IBM killing OS/2 and OS/2 developers there.

That's what I did. I've been talking with, and listening to, other
OS/2 developers for years. That's how I know that very few of them
think highly of IBM.

>However, your experience with OS/2 software development and IBM is
>not unique.  I'm convinced of that.  I also believe that too many
>OS/2 developers were trampled by the IBM elephant.  How many is too
>many?  Some might say one is too many.

"How many is many?"?????

Oh christ, I sense a Tholensque diversion-imitation coming down the
pike.

Listen, if you want to wrap a christmas bow around it and pretend that
it's something else, you can do so. But those of us who know what
really went down, are holding our noses while reading Jackson's
decision. We know that IBM told fairy tales in that courtroom about
what happened to OS/2 developers -- IBM's final, ignoble, insulting
dismissal of them in typical IBM pass-the-buck fashion. IBM may be
able to fool some technically illiterate judge, but IBM will not be
fooling ex-OS/2 developers for a looooooooooong time. IBM may have the
size of an elephant, but I'm willing to bet that ex-OS/2 developers
will have the memory of one. It will be cold day in hell before some
IBM employee will ever be able to wave his arms around and repeat the
periodic IBM vaudeville routine of "Yeah, we made mistakes before, but
this is the *NEW* IBM. *NOW* we really care and it's not going to be
the same-old-business as usual", and get more than derisive chuckles
from ex-OS/2 developers.

>> And yet, none of this was even mentioned in the judge's "finding of
>> fact", because the judge was never even informed about any of these
>> things, and never even heard from the developers about whose
>> intentions and experiences he drew erroneous conclusions.

>Then that is the fault of Microsoft's legal team.

Yes, it is. Microsoft's lawyers have indeed not shown a fraction of
the competence and shrewdness that the software marketing and
development team show.

They should be sacked.

>And according to Judge Jackson, MS's actions and decisions forced
>IBM into making decisions and taking actions that contributed to
>financial hardships for OS/2 developers.

But the real truth is that OS/2 developers figured out a long time ago
that IBM was only paying cheap lip service to OS/2. And IBM certainly
didn't care about any other entity except IBM, and IBM decisions
reflected that -- business as usual for IBM.

>> >How many vendors of DOS and Windows utilities have
>> >been swallowed whole by the Redmond giant?

>> Vendors of DOS and Windows utilities are not ex-OS/2 developers who
>> were allegedly "forced" to abandon OS/2 because of some supposed "MS
>> monopoly". In fact, those developers have no relevence to the issues
>> that OS/2 developers faced.

>Judge Jackson disagrees.

Undoubtably because he didn't even talk to any ex-OS/2 developers. How
would he even know who they were? He apparently relied exclusively
upon IBM's testimony about OS/2, and frankly, most anything IBM would
have to say about OS/2 nowadays should be deeply distrusted. Didn't
you learn *anything* from those leaked IBM memos about the difference
between what IBM says, and what that hand behind IBM's back is doing?

Well, people who got screwed over by IBM certainly did.

>> That's because you are not aware of, and truly underestimate, the
>> extent to which ex-OS/2 developers believe that IBM killed OS/2.

>If I underestimate anything, it's your knowledge on the subject.  I
>don't believe you have direct knowledge to support your claims.

That's because you obviously never talked much to OS/2 developers.
(Or, perhaps since you never were an OS/2 developer yourself, you
weren't privy to a lot of the things that went on in regard to such).

>> >I know
>> >that what you described occurred all too often (once is too much in my
>> >estimation).  IBM should not have made the about face it did.  They
>> >had a good start in supporting games, etc, but it needed a lot of
>> >work.  I remember when the Joystick driver came out.  I believe two
>> >guys coded that, and IBM eventually supported for it.  Then the decision
>> >came, (I guess someone remembered the "B" means Business) and OS/2 was
>> >no longer a gaming platform.

>> You appear to responding to someone else's points. I never said
>> anything about games at all in my posts.

>Actually, I was giving an example of OS/2 developers providing a product
>in response to IBM's stated intentions for OS/2 (i.e., IBM intended OS/2
>for games).  IBM did a 180; OS/2 is not for games.  The MMOS2 reference
>is another example of that.  IBM's 180 left a lot of people out to dry.

>> >And MMOS2 needs a lot of work.  It was a good start, though.

>> I never said anything about MMOS2 either. Maybe the problem is that
>> you're not sure who is saying what in this thread? In that case, you
>> should reserve your judgments about who is "wrong" until such time as
>> you verify who has said what.

>See above.

Your posts are getting more and more schizophrenic and confusing as
you go on. You seem to be disproving your own points, and then
reiterating those disproven points.

At this point, I'm not sure what you're trying to say or prove, if
anything.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         10-Nov-99 08:10:02
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 05:30:18
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451493

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Marty expanded to only three additional articles today, but that still
demonstrates hypocrisy based on his stated intention to save bandwidth
by not responding to what he perceives as my "baby-talk tripe".  The
only way he could save face would be to admit that the articles of mine
to which he responded are not "baby-talk tripe", but doing so would
contradict his claim that I'm playing an "infantile game".  Either way,
Marty loses (or that would be looses, to use Marty's "implementation").

Also note that 65 times Marty claimed there was "no response", despite
the fact that there was a response, just like the one he used against
me.  He also ignored the fact that I had responded to his arguments
many times previously.

Meanwhile, he still maintains that there is no Java 1.2 functionality
in OS/2 Java 1.1.8, despite the overwhelming evidence against him.  In
yet another attempt to save face, he's had to redefine "implements" to
ignore anything that doesn't conform to the standard or involves a
different interface.  But that approach was already destroyed by using
the analogy involving the rotary dial and touch tone telephones.  Or
one could use the FORTRAN 77 extension that implemented the functionality
of Fortran 90's derived types via structures.  The functionality is there
though the interface is not the same, and it's definitely not standard in
that the keyword is different (something that Fred Emmerich still hasn't
discovered).

Lastly, Marty seems to be having trouble distinguishing between two
simple tests and the article in which they are contained.  Looks like
he'll stop at nothing to twist things around to agree with his view
of the world.

1> Well, unfortunately Dave hasn't stopped wasting bandwidth (or even
1> slowed down), having excreted his invective and illogic all over his
1> keyboard and passing on said excretion to the readers of COOA.  Of
1> course, by his response, he effectively admitted that his postings
1> are "baby-talk tripe", because he claimed that I was incorrect when
1> I said that I don't respond to such postings.  He has even tried that
1> tired old "I'm a programmer" line, but when asked to present evidence
1> he has failed to do so time and time again, and only serves to make
1> him look like a fool, as he has already demonstrated a high degree of
1> ignorance in the field.  Unfortunately, he doesn't confine his
1> ignorance to the field of software, either.  He also decided that I
1> not only have a wagon, but I've hitched it to Curtis Bass' alleged
1> horse, while again ignoring the incontrovertible evidence presented
1> to him.  No surprise there.  Why do you think he was twice elected
1> Kook of the Month?

"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> One wonders who Dave perceives he is currently addressing and for
1> whose benefit is his infantile "digest" game.  It certainly doesn't
1> benefit him, as it further shows what a hypocritical buffoon he is.
1> I guess it's part of his infantile tantrum and "wrath" (denoted by
1> "I warned you about going down this path") because I embarassed him
1> so much.  Too bad his "wrath" is completely ineffective, as I would
1> assume any wrath emanating from him would be.

"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> You have to ask yourself, is it because of Dave's sex life that he
1> is going through all of this?

"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: 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> Note: no response

1> Note: no response

1> Note: no response

1> Note: no response

1> Note: no response

2> And consistent with Tholen's hypocritical whining about removing
2> 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.

2> And speaking of dishonesty...

"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> And how could he have known how much classes.zip was compressed, or
2> its CRC-32 if he read the file classes.zip?  Apparently Tholen is
2> completely ignorant of how WinZip works.  Timbol (or anyone else
2> capable of passing the third grade) can view the contents of a Zip
2> file within a Zip file without extracting anything, with a simple
2> double-click in WinZip.

"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> And given that he referred to the compressed size of classes.zip,
2> he was clearly referring to JAVAINUF.EXE, which is the only place
2> in which such information is stored.  How embarassing that Tholen
2> doesn't understand this concept.

"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> Obvious evidence of reading comprehension problems.

"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 of reading comprehension problems (as if further
2> evidence were needed).  Perhaps if Dave hadn't hypocritically removed
2> the context from this statement he'd have a chance (albiet slim) of
2> comprehending it.

"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> Sound to me like someone dishonestly destroyed context, Curtis.

"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> Perhaps that's Tholen's idiotic contention, but by his own admittance,
2> this is just a mere diversion.  It seems he almost enjoys the taste of
2> his foot in his mouth.

"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> "There is only one relevant point, namely that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
2> implements Java 1.2 functionality.  That's been firmly established
2> using quotations from IBM and the actual JDK.  Everything else has
2> been a diversion."
2> - Dave Tholen

2> "There is only one relevant point, namely that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
2> implements Java 1.2 functionality.  That's been firmly established
2> using quotations from IBM and the actual JDK.  Everything else has
2> been a diversion."
2> - Dave Tholen

2> "There is only one relevant point, namely that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
2> implements Java 1.2 functionality.  That's been firmly established
2> using quotations from IBM and the actual JDK.  Everything else has
2> been a diversion."
2> - Dave Tholen

2> Dave just ignored the significance of these references, not the
2> references themselves.

"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> And where does one find the compression ratio of classes.zip?  Why,
2> in JAVAINUF.EXE, of course.

"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> Take it from Dave:  he knows what it's like to be inept.  Though he
2> has demonstrated quite a bit of prowess at shoving his foot in his
2> mouth.

"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> And didn't Dave recently write:
2> "There is only one relevant point, namely that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
2> implements Java 1.2 functionality.  That's been firmly established
2> using quotations from IBM and the actual JDK.  Everything else has
2> been a diversion."
2> - Dave Tholen

2> "There is only one relevant point, namely that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
2> implements Java 1.2 functionality.  That's been firmly established
2> using quotations from IBM and the actual JDK.  Everything else has
2> been a diversion."
2> - Dave Tholen

2> Dave answered his own question best:  "... Everything else has been
2> a diversion."

"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> Illogic defines Dave; it doesn't refute him.

"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> Why would Curtis know embarrassment?  None has been sent his way.
2> Dave is hoarding all of the embarrassment to himself.

"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> Yup, Dave's diversions finally paid off in boring yet another person
2> with a different opinion than his into submission.  No one is
2> surprised by this dishonest, underhanded, and cowardly tactic.

"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> No need.  It is obvious.

"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 ironic, coming from someone who both hypocritically spews forth
2> his own "invective" and also lacks a logical argument (among other
2> things).

"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> And Dave has it right on the top of his head.

"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> And even more firmly debunked by examining the contents of the
3> actual JDK itself as delivered by IBM.

"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> Glad Tholen agrees that he was a major contributor in such a
3> diversion.

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

4> Dave Tholen wrote:

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               10-Nov-99 11:05:19
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 10:29:14
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Thomas Galley <[e-mail]>

Hey!

The internet may have started as an american military research project
(beurk!!!), but it became "the Internet" just after Europeans in Geneva
(ever heard of Tim Berners-Lee) invented the WWW, mind you!

Greetings

Thomas

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>,
> [e-mail] says...
> >
> >All I can say is that you've got one huge chip on your shoulder regarding
> >Europeans and their technology. Maybe you should get out more.
> >
> >Cheers,
> >Steve
> >
> >Western Geophysical, Bedford, UK
> >Tel: [phone]
> >Fax: [phone]
> >
>
> Face it. The USA leads the world in most technological categories. That's
just
> the way it is. Who do you think invented the Internet?
>
> Hint...it wasn't the UK.
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------
> David H. McCoy
> dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
> ---------------------------------------

--
PIRONET INTRANET AG
Thomas Paul Galley, MA (CCNA) - Internet/Intranet Trainee
Im Mediapark 5 - 50670 Köln
Tel.: [phone] - FAX: [phone]
mailto:[e-mail] - http://www.pironet.com
certified professional Java Programmer (see link below)
http://www.tekmetrics.com/transcript.shtml?pid=57102

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PIRONET AG News-System (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               10-Nov-99 11:18:21
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 10:29:14
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: Thomas Galley <[e-mail]>

Hey all!

This place is really full of potential candiadtes for my killfile... I
am just not sure, whether it may be too much fun to read them...

Hasta la vista (Hello Jeff, that was Spanish)!

Thomas

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
>
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1433590.html?tag=st.ne.ron.lthd.1003-200-
> 1433590
>
> So, we now have JavaBlend in Solaris and NT flavors? Isn't OS/2 the premiere
> platform?
> And where Realplayer has released 7.0? What are the odds of a Win16 version?
>
> Let the spin...begin!
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------
> David H. McCoy
> dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
> ---------------------------------------

--
PIRONET INTRANET AG
Thomas Paul Galley, MA (CCNA) - Internet/Intranet Trainee
Im Mediapark 5 - 50670 Köln
Tel.: [phone] - FAX: [phone]
mailto:[e-mail] - http://www.pironet.com
certified professional Java Programmer (see link below)
http://www.tekmetrics.com/transcript.shtml?pid=57102

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PIRONET AG News-System (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                            10-Nov-99 10:34:09
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 10:29:14
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Steve Drewell <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999, David H. McCoy wrote:

ε Face it. The USA leads the world in most technological categories. That's
ε just the way it is. Who do you think invented the Internet?
ε
ε Hint...it wasn't the UK.

Well, if you want to get silly, then who invented moving pictures
(cinema), television, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine,
the computer, pizza, radio. All those things were major technological
advances (apart from pizza) and have been used throughout the world by
millions of people to enhance their quality of life. But who invented
them? Hint...none were invented in the USA.

This discussion could go on and on, so I'm bailing out now before it get's
even more stupid.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Western Geophysical, Houston, TX (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                           10-Nov-99 06:26:11
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 10:29:14
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/10/99 at 06:51 AM,
   [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt) said:

> You have to wonder if IBM hires an employee to go around and
> surreptiously tape pieces of paper to the backs of OS/2 Advocates that
> read "Kick Me"

No, they pinned the one on your back which said "F**K YOU"

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           10-Nov-99 06:38:27
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 10:29:14
Subj: Re: MS is a monopoly - but here is a legit questrion

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/09/99 at 09:19 PM,
   Joseph <[e-mail]> said:





> WHAT is it with Microsoft Corp. and federal judges?

> The industrialized world is now familiar with U.S. District Judge Thomas
> Penfield Jackson's slashing ``findings of fact'' in the antitrust case
> in Washington, D.C. People are less familiar with another Microsoft case
> in Utah, but the latter is beginning to look grim for the software
> company -- and language in a recent ruling suggests Microsoft has
> alienated the judge in the Utah case, too.

Thanks for the pointer which led me to Caldera's website on which I found
something which must really have the underware turing brown in Redmond. It
is the first paragraph of the Court's response to several petitions by
MicroSoft for partial summary judgement. (An attempt by MicroSoft to get
the charges or some of them dropped)

Here are the words of the Judge:

The Tenth Circuit admonishes that, in an antitrust dispute, "[p]laintiff's
evidence should be viewed as a whole" -- not artificially segregated as in
Microsoft's numerous motions for partial summary judgment. Aspen Highlands
Skiing Corp. v. Aspen Skiing Co., 738 F.2d 1509, 1522 n.18 (10th Cir.
1984), aff'd, 472 U.S. 585, 604 (1985). As the Supreme Court notes, an
antitrust plaintiff "should be given the full benefit of [its] proof
without tightly compartmentalizing the various factual components and
wiping the slate clean after the scrutiny of each." Continental Ore Co. v.
Union Carbide &Carbon Co., 370 U.S. 690, 699 (1962). The fact that a
monopolist such as Microsoft has engaged in a course of questionable
conduct is powerful evidence of bad intent and also illuminates the true
potential of a single act to cause harm -- a relatively minor blow to an
already beaten body does more harm than a single uppercut does to a fresh
fighter. See Photovest Corp. v. Fotomat Corp., 606 F.2d 704, 719 (7th Cir.
1979) ("Otherwise lawful practices may become unlawful if they are part of
an illegal scheme"); City of Mishawaka, Indiana v. American Electric Power
Co., 616 F.2d 976, 986 (7th Cir. 1980) ("It is the mix of the various
ingredients of [defendant's] behavior in a monopoly broth that produces
the unsavory flavor").


The Judge also wrote:


Microsoft is only entitled to summary judgment if it shows "that there is
no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is
entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). The
Supreme Court has stated that a "genuine issue" exists simply "if the
evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 282, 248, 106
S. Ct. 2505, 2510 (1986). Three important points control this
consideration of Microsoft's motions for summary judgment:

     The Court is required to view the facts and draw all reasonable
inferences in a light most favorable to Caldera.

     Caldera is entitled to have the credibility of all its evidence
presumed.

     Microsoft has the initial burden to show an absence of evidence to
support Caldera's case.

Id. at 250, 254-55, 106 S. Ct. at 2511, 2513.

Even brief discourse makes plain how inappropriate summary judgment is
here: the case is factually complex; it is of undeniable and far-reaching
public importance; numerous material facts are in dispute; and Microsoft's
explanations of its conduct are starkly at odds with its own internal,
contemporaneous documents. Indeed, Microsoft presents this Court with
little more than a mass of baldly self-serving testimony from its own
employees. But doubts as to the credibility of the movant's witnesses may
alone lead this Court to conclude that a genuine issue exists. See C.
Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, 10A Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d
2726 at 113 (1983). Where, as here, "the knowledge of the events or
occurrences on which the action is based lies  exclusively within the
control of the party moving for summary judgment,"  courts are
understandably reluctant to deprive the nonmoving party of the opportunity
of testing the movants' or their witnesses' credibility in open court. Id.
at 120. See Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255, 106 S. Ct. at 2513 ("Credibility
determinations, the weighing of evidence, and the drawing of legitimate
inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge");
United States v. Perry, 431 F.2d 1020, 1022 (9th Cir. 1970) (summary
judgment inappropriate "where a trial, with its opportunity for
cross-examination and testing the credibility of witnesses, might disclose
a picture substantially different from that given by the affidavits").

End of quotes from Court.

Reading the entire page (pages actually) along with exhibits and testimony
of MS executives is chilling. They prove beyond any doubt that Gates led a
conspiracy to destroy DR-DOS. It proves that Gates and company bludgeoned
OEM's not to sell machines without DOS. It proves that Windows 9x is
really nothing more than DOS with an add/on. It proves that MS
deliberately tried to intimidate buyers of non-MS DOS machines.

More interestingly, it proves beyond all question that Tim Patterson, then
an employee of Seattle Computer and now an MS executive, was the author of
what was sold as MS-DOS 1.0, that Gates bought rights to it, that Gates
misled IBM as to the authorship of DOS 1.0, that IBM was the primary
author of versions 2x and 3x of MS-DOS, not MicroSoft.

One very chilling thing is contained in those internal memoranda from
Microsoft execs to the staff. MS tried to lock up the Church of Jesus
Christ of Latter Day Saints (the Mormon church) as an MS only shop in an
effort to kill WordPerfect which was of course a Utah company. Gates and
his cronies believed that if they could do that, it would kill WordPerfect
because of the impact of such a decision in Utah.

In many ways, this suit could well prove far more disasterous to MS than
the DOJ suit. The issues are much narrower, the proofs much less
convoluted, and the damages much easier to quantify on a dollar basis.
Moreover, the excellent job done by Caldera's attorneys in cross-examining
MS executives provide fertile ground for subsequent suits by other ISV's
and OEM's against MS. Finally, the proofs offer fertile ground for a class
action suit by every individual, company, institution, etc. for damages in
that MS artificially raised the price of said machine by its
anti-competitive practices. Even if the damages are only $5 per machine, a
successful class action suit would cost MS several billions of dollars
when one considers the number of machines sold with MS-DOS installed. The
five dollar number I used is hypothetical and probably very low. It
certainly would be much higher for the millions of people who were forced
to buy MS-DOS even though they were planning to run an alternate operating
system.

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.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           10-Nov-99 07:29:21
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 10:29:14
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/10/99 at
10:34 AM,
   Steve Drewell <[e-mail]> said:


> Well, if you want to get silly, then who invented moving pictures
> (cinema), television, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine,
> the computer, pizza, radio. All those things were major technological
> advances (apart from pizza) and have been used throughout the world by
> millions of people to enhance their quality of life. But who invented
> them? Hint...none were invented in the USA.

Thomas Edison invented moving pictures. He was born in New Jersey in the
United States. Marconi was living in and working in the United States when
he successfully invented radio.

In most of the world, Philo Farnsworth a native born citizen of the United
States, working for RCA is credited with developing the first television.
Only some chauvinistic Brits claim otherwise. What is known today as pizza
was an American invention introduced to Italy by US troops in 1944.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                                     10-Nov-99 13:35:19
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 10:29:14
Subj: Re: New Issue of OS/2 e-Zine!

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>

Welcome back!

Corey
Mirage Media
Nuenen, The Netherlands

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  10-Nov-99 07:54:27
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 12:08:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Something spewing claptrap, as usual, calling itself
<[e-mail]> tholened:
> > <SARCASM> Color me surprised </SARCASM>
>
> Sarcasm is another often-used tactic when a person lacks a logical
> argument.

And sometimes, like in this argument with you, Tholen, sarcasm is all that
is deserved.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     10-Nov-99 13:53:09
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 12:08:18
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Mirage Media <[e-mail]>

What is true in Taiwan (hardware-wise) tends to end up being true
virtually everywhere as Taiwan (or Taiwanese factories in China and the
Philipines) account for close to 80% of PC hardware manufactured....even
Apple's iBook is made in Taiwan (Hsinchuang, as I recall). While in
Taiwan, I was able to walk up the street from my apartment and get
samples from several of the largest manufacturers there. Most of the
manufacturers stopped supporting or even testing their hardware for OS/2
sometime ago. An example, in June I dropped by to pick up a new
motherboard for testing. While talking with their chief engineer I
noticed they had a copy of Os/2 Warp 3. He told me they had stopped
testing in 1996.

If you've never gone, I'd like to invite you to come to Taipei next year
for Computex. It's the largest computer hardware show in the world. My
wife and I will be glad to introduce you to various component
manufacturers and take you to "Snake Alley" for dinner....it's probably
best if you *don't* use your imagination :^)

BTW, would it be possible for possi.org to put up a page of hardware
vendors who specifically support OS/2 and ship drivers with their
products?

Corey
Mirage Media
Nuenen, The Netherlands

Esther Schindler wrote:
>
> I've seen several hardware boxes, recently, that say OS/2 right on the
> box, and more that have the OS/2 drivers on the disk. What you say may
> be true in Taiwan but it's not necessarily so elsewhere.
>
>

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          10-Nov-99 12:51:01
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 12:08:18
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (The Doctor)

In article <942217866.56827858@news>, Barry Adams  <[e-mail]> wrote:
>On Tue, 09 Nov 1999, Erik wrote:
>
>>> Barry you should stick to what you know.  You really don't have a
>>> clue.  On decent hardware OS/2 is definately more stable.  But
>>> OS/2 is useless if you have to run hardware that only has drivers
>>> for MS OS's and even more useless if you have to or want to run MS
>>> software.
>>
>>Isn't it possible that OS/2 was a flop?
>
>Oh sure of course.  Just because it had some nice features, doesn't mean that
>it had the correct mix to be attractive in the mass market.  Whether it would
>have flourished in a market not completely dominated by MS is purely a matter
>of conjecture.
>

OS/2 was NOT a flop.  IBM has good products but BAD marketing.

>>If I design a new OS that's utterly useless in terms of software support,
>>would I get the attention of some fathead US judge?
>>Probably not.  IBM would have far more contacts than me, though.  Far more .
>
>I haven't read the "findings of fact" myself, so I can only go by some of the
>articles I've read.  It appears that the judge found many instances wherein
MS
>used its market dominance to unfairly thwart competition.  OS/2 is mentioned
in
>some areas, but I don't know if OS/2 played much of a part in Judge Jackson's
>findings?

We will see.

>
>>If there is any kind of penalty imposed on Microsoft perhaps they could
>>diversify to BC; where we are also tired of this bogus government
>>intervention against success.  (After our present 'gov't' is gone, of
>>course).
>
>If MS was a foreign company, they would have been nailed years ago.
>

MS == Microsoft == Multiple Sclorosys
--
God Queen and Country                Member - Liberal International
Never Satan President and Republic   This is [e-mail]    Ici
[e-mail]
Society MUST be saved! Republics must dissolve.
LEst we forget on 11 Nov. 1999

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: A poorly-installed InterNetNews site (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                      10-Nov-99 13:30:05
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 12:08:18
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:38291399$1$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <rr5W3.4941$[e-mail]>, on 11/10/99 at 03:15 AM,
>    "Jason R." <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > The findings of fact are a joke.  Things are the only way they can be.
> > The browser belongs with the OS as much as the GUI does or the user
> > management software does.  That they ding MS for the IE fiasco
> > completely invalidates anything else they say.  It's like a physicist
> > claiming the Earth is 5000 years old then saying 'Now listen as I
> > explain gravity'.
>
> Get your nose out of Bill's ass you fool. The findings are not a joke,
> they are findings of fact in a major federal case. If you think they are
> funny, you are a truly sick individual.

As I'm sure the judges past two rulings were not jokes. But were overturned
in appeals court anyway. Which, basically means, he was wrong 2/2 times.
Looks like he's headed for 3/3!


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

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

From: [e-mail]                      10-Nov-99 13:03:11
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 12:08:18
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
>
>
> "Jason R." wrote:
>
> > Uhh, who the hell wants an OS with no real, widespread apps?  Windows
> > _should_ be the dominant OS because it's easier for the clueless masses
to
> > learn one environment.
>
> Amen brother. Now tell the owner of Windows to stop breaking anti-trust
laws
> and messing with the natural order of the world.
"Natural order of the world?" and what pray tell would that be, bro?

>
> And we should all drive Ford Explorers. It is easier for the clueless
masses of
> the world to learn one vehicle and dashboard layout.

um, nooooo. In US cars we got the wheel on the left, you turn it and the car
goes towards the direction you turned it. Shift using one of two methods, #1
manual or #2 automatic (transmission, version 2.0+). Pedal on right goes
faster, pedal on left (or middle if using shift method #1) stops. Clutch to
shift manual. Display in front of wheel with info regarding speed, fuel and
other factors.

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.




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

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

From: [e-mail]                                       10-Nov-99 13:59:19
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 12:08:18
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Illya Vaes <[e-mail]>

Marty wrote:
>"David D. Huff Jr." wrote:
>>The book has already (literally) been written on this one. I just wonder
>>if the judgement (award) will be sufficient to make M$ suffer any.
>I don't think the court is terribly concerned about making MS suffer.  In
>fact, I hope they are not because it would accomplish nothing. What the
>ourt should be concerned about is how to prevent MS from creating a similar
>such situation in the future.

Murderers and other criminals aren't _punished_ to prevent another murder
(crime) but are _punished_ to pay for the wrong they have done.
The (criminal) courts are all about punishing, and rightly so because you have
ignored the rules of society.
Prevention of future crimes is only of secondary relevance, and rightly so
because you cannot be punished for what you have not done (yet). "Protecting"
one against oneself (preventing having the ability to commit a crime) can only
go so far...

>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???

>or the government's regulation of it.

The judicial system != government in any modern society (it would be in an MS
society).

>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.
Competing fairly from now on (who, MS??? A snowball's chance in hell) is
completely irrelevant, the past conduct is to be addressed.

--
Illya Vaes   ([e-mail])        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel [phone], Fax [phone]           Not speaking for anyone but myself

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  10-Nov-99 15:53:20
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 16:37:18
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Stan Goodman)

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:51:02, [e-mail] (The Doctor) wrote:

> In article <942217866.56827858@news>, Barry Adams  <[e-mail]>
wrote:
> >On Tue, 09 Nov 1999, Erik wrote:

------------snip-----------

> >>If there is any kind of penalty imposed on Microsoft perhaps they could
> >>diversify to BC; where we are also tired of this bogus government
> >>intervention against success.  (After our present 'gov't' is gone, of
> >>course).

You mean you think that a company can sit in Canada and run a business in
restraint of trade in the US?

------------snip-----------

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

Spammers are getting smarter; email sent to [e-mail] will 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: [e-mail]                               10-Nov-99 14:15:08
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 16:37:18
Subj: Re: "All bets are off regarding Windows" - IBM

From: Brad BARCLAY <[e-mail]>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
> Absolutely. 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.

    Actually, if you check the latest published numbers, IBM's big-iron
business has actually faced a decline this year (blamed on Y2K issues),
and the division that has been it's "bread and butter" has been the
Software division.  So far this year, AS/400, RS/6000 and S/390 revenues
have been down.

    Of course you could learn all of this yourself by doing a quick check
on the web.  Then again, that would assume that you were more interested
in accuracy and truth over being able to spread FUD (you know, like you
not knowing what an API is).

Brad BARCLAY

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  [e-mail]        Location:  2G43D@Torolabs

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          10-Nov-99 14:52:10
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 16:37:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Curtis Bass wrote:
>
> Bennie Nelson wrote:
>
> -- snip --
>
> > I've read some of this, but not all.  Mainly, my contributions have dealt
> > with communication failures due to protocol incompatibilities.  I try to
> > ignore the noise in the signal.  Jeff Glatt is the one responsible for
> > the "noise" you're quoting here.  I've never said or implied that I am
> > astounded by anyone's logic who has posted in comp.os.os2.advocacy.  That
> > includes you, Dave Tholen, and myself.
> >
> > Since you, Marty, and Dave have invested so many words in this hot topic,
> > I'd be interested in reading a post from each of you that summarizes the
> > points each has made.  Individually, that is.  No references to anyone
> > else or anyone else's words.  What exactly is the technical information
> > that a reader should know that so many words have been spilled over?
>
> One can look at the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE, and extract those
> contents, without running OS/2.

Agreed.

>
> The statement, "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" is
> ambiguous; it can be interpreted at least two ways.

Indeed.

I believe it was established from IBM's own words that, regardless of
the ambiguity, some portion and or portions of Java 1.2 is present in
Java 1.1.8 for OS/2.  Furthermore, the statement can trigger further
investigation by, for example, a Java developer.  The details of
exactly which Java 1.2 features have been implemented is germane for
one or more of the comp.os.os2.programmer* newsgroups.

>
> I haven't commented on whether Java 1.1.8 actually does implement Java
> 1.2 functionality, beyond my observation regarding the statement itself,
> because I am admittedly ignorant in that area. Based on said ignorance,
> I refused to enter into that aspect of the debate.
>
> I am not ignorant regarding whether one can extract the contents of an
> OS/2 self extracting archive in a non-OS/2 environment. I noticed an
> error on this issue, and pointed out said error.

It seems that the statement that you say was in error can also be
interpreted at least two ways (to borrow your statement from above).

Thanks for the post.

Bennie Nelson

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               10-Nov-99 14:31:12
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 16:37:18
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Brad BARCLAY <[e-mail]>

"Vincent P. LaBella" wrote:
>         I was a long time OS/2 user, since 2.0 (pre service pack) and I
> just recently moved to NT.  I feel a need to share my experiences with
> OS/2 and why I liked it and why I'm not using it anymore.

    Okay - I've been active in the OS/2 community for at least 7 years now
- so why is it that once every few weeks I see a lengthy post from some
person I've never heard of or seen online before about why they're
abandoning OS/2 for Windows?

    Maybe what Vince is saying is the truth - but then again, how does
anyone here know that he's ever seen OS/2, much less used it?

    I've done a quick DejaNews search - and other than some recent posts
attempting to sell some books and software (and this thread), Vincent
has never posted anything to any of the OS/2 newsgroups - not even when
searching the old Deja archives.

    Vince, you have no right to complain.  You could have helped to make a
difference, but you didn't.  I encourage you to use what platform works
best for you, and if tha's Windows, more power to you.  But you've
picked a bad time to suddenly become a part of the OS/2 community.  Why
start posting now?  Just to try to drag other people down with you as
well so you don't have to feel bad about the choice you were forced to
make?  Doesn't it bother you that you're now poviding monetary support
to the company that forced that choice?

Brad BARCLAY
(Not speaking for my employer).

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             10-Nov-99 19:33:29
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 16:37:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
  Curtis Bass <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
> Jeff Glatt wrote:
> >
> > >Curtis Bass <[e-mail]>
> > >And, as Jeff Glatt pointed out to me, you apparently didn't even
realize
> > >you *had* a corrupt file until after viewing our (Marty's, Mike's
and
> > >my) non-bogus evidence, namely, the JPEG of WinZip displaying the
> > >contents of the JAVAINUF.EXE file, which means that you hadn't even
> > >extracted its contents yet, but still argued about what the file
> > >contained, and that one had to use OS/2 to extract the contents in
the
> > >first place!!!
> >
> > The really scary part is that this Tholen lunatic claims to be doing
> > important work in the astronomy field. If he pursues his avocation
as
> > clumsily and ineptly as he pursued gathering "evidence" to support
his
> > now-known-to-be-exceedingly-ignorant claims here in this newsgroup,
> > then he must truly be doing a pathetic job.
>
> I have often reflected on this myself; one can only hope that he's
> better at astronomy than he is at . . . well . . . whatever the hell
it
> is that he's doing here.  And I cannot help but have sympathy for his
> students, especially those who have viewpoints (on *any* bloody thing
> you could care to name) that differ from his . . .


He probably just argues them into submission to his views with claims
of irrelevancy and illogic..... 8)

Lucien S.
> -- 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: [e-mail]                                 10-Nov-99 20:39:11
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 16:37:18
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <[e-mail]>


Dave Tholen wrote:

-- snip --

> > Where did you ever admit that your "measurements weren't valid,"
> > Dave? You have insisted that Mike's, Marty's and my "results weren't
> > valid" because we weren't using your "voltmeter."
>
> What I really insisted is that WinZip is not superior to InfoZip in
> its ability to unzip a zip archive, Curtis.

No, what you have insisted is that *my* copy of JAVAINUF.EXE was
"irrelevant" to the disproof of your erroneous claim that one had to run
OS/2 in order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.

-- snip --

> > You keep bringing this up, but it ultimately makes no difference (see
> > above).
>
> On the contrary, it makes plenty of difference, Curtis.  There was
> nothing "inept" on my part, contrary to your claim.  Where did you
> admit that I'm not "inept"?
>
> > I have shown that you posted youor error messages ***as a response
> > to*** Mike's claim of extracting the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE
> > without running OS/2.
>
> Of course, Curtis.  That's because I was posting contradictory
> evidence.

Based on a broken copy of JAVAINUF.EXE. Your failure to determine the
integrity of your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE before using it as a basis for
evidence is "inept," Dave.

  His claim is what triggered my posting, Curtis.  Amazing
> that you finally got one piece of the chronology correct, but for
> some reason, you're acting as if I've denied it.
>
> > You dimiss this because "Mike is a known liar,"
>
> Not only that, Curtis, but also because I had evidence that contradicted
> his claim.

Based on a broken copy of JAVAINUF.EXE. Your failure to determine the
integrity of your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE before using it as a basis for
evidence is "inept," Dave.

> > which has absolutely nothing to do with the ***fact*** that his claim
> > was ***truthful*** and ***accurate,***
>
> On the contrary, Timbol's history of lying and my contradictory
> evidence have everything to with it, Curtis.

Nope. It has everything to do with your perceptions, but nothing to do
with the facts.

> > And that your claim was ***erroneous.***
>
> On the contrary, the error message from InfoZip was genuine, Curtis.

I said your *claim* was erroneous, not the error messages.

-- snip --

> Reading comprehension makes cameo appearance.

"Sarcasm is another often-used tactic when a person lacks a logical
argument." Dave Tholen, 11/10/1999

> > 3) You try unzip.exe on JAVAINUF.EXE and get
> >    a bunch of error messages, and cannot
> >    extract the contents of the file that way.
>
> I never described the output as "a bunch of error messages", Curtis.

I never claimed you "described" the output at all, Dave.

> > 4) The other files you downloaded from IBM
> >    executed in OS/2 just fine.
>
> Reading comprehension makes cameo appearance.

"Sarcasm is another often-used tactic when a person lacks a logical
argument." Dave Tholen, 11/10/1999

-- snip --

> > 7) Because you respond to Mike's claim re-
> >    garding WinZip with your failed attempt
> >    using InfoZip, and because you made the
> >    erroneous statement that one had to use
> >    OS/2 in order to extract the contents of
> >    JAVAINUF.EXE, I state that you are inept.
>
> And you've never been able to prove it.

You have been proving it over and over, Dave.

-- snip --

> And I verified it by downloading more copies of the file, Curtis,
> and noting the different file lengths.  It took a total of five
> downloads before I got two files with identical contents.  Yet
> you somehow blame me for the download failure, just like blaming
> someone for burning out a light bulb when flipping the switch on.

No, I blame you for using your "burned out light bulb" in an attempt to
refute someone else's truthful claim that they could get their light
working using a different method.  Your failure to determine the
integrity of your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE before using it as a basis for
evidence is "inept," Dave.

> > 10) When Marty or I claim that WinZip can
> >     process JAVAINUF.EXE properly, you dis-
> >     miss it because WinZip can't process
> >     your "incomplete" file.
>
> Thereby contradicting the claim that WinZip is somehow superior to
> InfoZip in its ability to unzip a zip archive.

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that WinZip is in no way superior to
InfoZip, how does that fail to disprove your claim that one has to run
OS/2 in order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE?

-- snip --

> > So, the bottom line is that you chose to ignore Mike's data,
>
> On the contrary, I did not ignore it, Curtis.  I contradicted it using
> my own data.

Based on a broken copy of JAVAINUF.EXE. Your failure to determine the
integrity of your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE before using it as a basis for
evidence is "inept," Dave.

-- snip --

> > Finally, you presupposed Mike to be lying,
>
> Incorrect, Curtis.  I had evidence that contradicted his claim,

Based on a broken copy of JAVAINUF.EXE. Your failure to determine the
integrity of your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE before using it as a basis for
evidence is "inept," Dave.

> thus no presupposition was involved.
>
> > but were later shown to be in error in said presupposition,
>
> I just finished telling you why there was no presupposition involved,
> Curtis.  Comprehend it.

Yes, you said that you had "evidence that contradicted his claim," but
the evidence was based on a broken copy of JAVAINUF.EXE. Your failure to
determine the integrity of your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE before using it as
a basis for evidence is "inept," Dave.

> > yet still cling to the erroneous conclusion to which you arrived
> > based on said erroneous presupposition.
>
> I just finished telling you why there was no presupposition involved,
> Curtis.  Comprehend it.

Yes, you said that you had "evidence that contradicted his claim," but
the evidence was based on a broken copy of JAVAINUF.EXE. Your failure to
determine the integrity of your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE before using it as
a basis for evidence is "inept," Dave.

-- snip --


Curtis

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                10-Nov-99 13:08:20
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 20:03:07
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: John M Price PhD <[e-mail]>

In comp.os.os2.advocacy article
<[e-mail]> Vincent P. LaBella
<[e-mail]> wrote:
: On 10 Nov 1999, Dave Tholen wrote:

:> Vincent P. LaBella writes:
:>
:> > Soon there will we wrist-watches that surf the web.  What are we
:> > going to do?  Try and put OS/2 on those wrist-watches?
:> >
:> > get real.
:>
:> Are you going to try and put Windows 2000 on those wrist watches?
:>
:> get real
:>
: what is windows 2000?

I guess THAT puts your opinions into perspective!


BBBBWWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH.....


--
John M. Price, PhD                                     [e-mail]
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling!      |      PGP Key on request or FTP!
  Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Comoderator: sci.psychology.psychotherapy.moderated          Atheist# 683
                     Syndicate Section III - Number 1

Cactus and a Samoan best viewed in monospaced font.
      _
  _  / \                           o
 / \ | |                       o           o             o
 | | | |   _                    o    o                 o       o
 | \_| |  / \                 o                     o    o
  \__  |  | |             o                           o
     | |  | |            ______   ~~~~              _____
     | |__/ |          / ___--\\ ~~~             __/_____\__
     |  ___/          / \--\\  \\   \ ___       <__  x x  __\
     | |             / /\\  \\       ))  \         (  "  )
     | |     -------(---->>(@)--(@)-------\----------< >-----------
     | |   //       | | //__________  /    \    ____)   (___      \\
     | |  //      __|_|  ( --------- )      //// ______ /////\     \\
         //       |    (  \ ______  /      <<<< <>-----<<<<< /      \\
        //       (     )                      / /         \` \__     \\
       //-------------------------------------------------------------\\

Every now and then when your life gets complicated and the weasels
start closing in, the only cure is to load up on heinous chemicals and
then drive like a bastard from Hollywood to Las Vegas ... with the
music at top volume and at least a pint of ether.
                -- H.S. Thompson, "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: his very own desk! (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                  10-Nov-99 09:34:15
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 20:03:07
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Peter Ammon <[e-mail]>

Drestin Black wrote:
>
> Peter Ammon <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
>
> You sound like you are parotting the judges words (reminder: this IS a
> judge, not a computer expert by any stretch of the imagination). I don't buy
> the barrier theory: are you saying there aren't any good apps for other
> OSes?

No, I don't think in black and white like that.  The problem is that
MOST apps don't run on BeOS or Linux.  One of the hardest problems
in marketing an OS is attracting developer support, because an OS
cannot exist in an application vacuum.  The OS that has the apps
gets the users and therefore gets the developers.  It's a catch-22
for other OS developers.

> apps that could be ported to Windows if they were good enough and
> people wanted to use them? What good app can you name that doesn't run under
> Windows (or doesn't have a equal or better equivilent under Windows)?

None.  That's my point.

>
> >
> > >  Windows
> > > _should_ be the dominant OS because it's easier for the clueless masses
> to
> > > learn one environment.
> >
> > Explain why BeOS shouldn't be, or Mac OS shouldn't be, or Linux
> > shouldn't be, then.
>
> Um, because Windows is an easier to learn/use environment with more support
> than X above? MacOS is the closest competitor in terms of ease of use, but
> the application base isn't big enough and developers just don't like the
> environment enough to make some mass exodus.

Can you stay focused on the point?  If Mac OS were the dominant OS,
then there wouldn't be the problem with the application base, for
the same reason that there isn't one with Windows now.  Is Windows
really easier to learn than, say, BeOS, all other things being
equal?  And if it is, then why was DOS dominant 10 years ago?

> >
> > >
> > > Windows has the desktop market because it is, bitter nerds or no bitter
> > > nerds, the best and _only_ real choice for 95% of all desktops.
> >
> > Bah.  It's the best for some.  The best for 95%?  Yeah right.  How
> > many newbie computer users really know what's the best for them?
>
> They don't but they need to learn. Do you throw them at the # and say, type
> "man" when you are stuck. Or do you let them click around on the screen,
> reading the little pop up tool tips? Clicking on "help" when they are stuck
> and reading big multimedia documents on the screen while they solve the
> problem. You know, help files that don't need a help file to understand? (Or
> if they make reference to something, include a hyperlink to that something
> and a quick way to get back once you've looked it up). Take a newbie, be
> unbiased and plop them in front of a PC with linux and windows 98 loaded up.
> Explain "cp, mv, pipes, etc" and "click on that file, drag it where you want
> it" - watch and see which environment they tend towards. Give them a CD to
> play a game. Give them a DVD to watch. Ask them to download and play a MP3
> file or AVI/ASF/RM movie. Have them call a local ISP and sign up for an
> account, then ask the person: Can you help me setup Windows/Linux for
> access? (Windows: "Dial-up networking, add new, phone number, username,
> password, finished." Linux: "Um, you can go to
> http://www.somelinsite.net/newbies/howto/online/guide/docs/confused.php and
> read how it's done. Oh, that's right, doh. OK, type man um, something, um,
> hang on, we use FreeBSD, lemme find someone using Linux..." click)
>
> sorry, keep linux vs win to computer experts or that argument fails quickly.

Then explain why Mac OS's share is so low.  Are you really prepared
to argue that Windows is easier to use for newbies 19 times out of
20?

> >
> > >  Other OS's
> > > have their place on the server in many situations.  There exists
> competition
> > > (again - like it or not) in every market in which MS competes.
> >
> > So?  The point is that there is not as much competition as there
> > should be or would be had Microsoft not abused their monopoly power.
>
> Why is MS to blame if it's competition sucks or can't produce a superiour
> product AND/OR can't force people to use it enough to make it popular?

MS is to blame because they used an advantage that others didn't
have, namely OS market dominance, to protect their inferior products
in other markets.  It's almost impossible to compete with that.

>
> Why is this so hard to understand. Americans are an independant bunch. We
> resist being told what to do. We're told not to drink and drive, but we do.
> We're told: "Smoke this and you and people around you will die" but we do
> (well some do these things). The government says: Do this. Americans do what
> they prefer and bitch until the laws can be changed.
>
> The idea that MS "forces" Americans to use something they do not want to use
> is absolutely ludicrous. How can any intelligent person imagine this be
> true. It doesn't necessarily follow that MS is better or Windows is perfect
> or anything like that: I'm just saying: People use Windows, despite choices
> because they want to or have to, not because they are forced to *by MS.*

OEMs were/are essentially forced to install IE and not Netscape by
Microsoft.  That's the issue.

>
> For another OS to win, it simply has to provide users what they need from
> Windows and you'll see a huge shift. All of MS's money won't be able to stop
> people from abandoning windows wholesale and leaving MS high and dry. No
> amount of advertising will change a thing. Threatening OEMs would be
> worthless if MS didn't have something people demanded.

Yes.  They have breached the applications barrier to entry, and they
have a mediocre product.  The point is that you can't breach the
applications barrier to entry simply by making a better product, and
especially not when Microsoft is determined to protect that barrier.

>
> Imagine: "OK, Mr. OEM, if you don't install ONLY Blackhat Linux on your
> systems we're going to raise our prices!" Mr. OEM is staring at this dude
> and goes: "Um, go ahead, we don't want it anyway, no one is asking for it.
> And we can download the Dubious distribution for free anyway." ALl it takes
> it to design a product Americans want, really want and the PEOPLE will be
> the ones screaming for change and driving the market to change.

People don't want Windows because of how good it is.  They want
Windows because that's where the apps are.  In my experience, most
people gloss over the Mac because "there aren't any apps for it."
True or not, it's a barrier.

>
> > >
> > > The findings of fact are a joke.  Things are the only way they can be.
> >
> > Pessimist.  Those who don't use Windows know better.
>
> No, realist. Only those who have used Window and MacOS and Linux and BSD and
> Be know better. We've seen both sides and realize the Judges incompetence
> and obvious anti-business pro-government stance.

So you speak for all users of the above OSes?  Amazing; I didn't
know I was debating with someone so important!  And I firmly believe
that the applications barrier to entry can be breached, and will
be...by things like YB, or Java.  And the biggest barrier to THAT
happening is Microsoft.  In other words, things are the only way
they can be because of Microsoft; remove their power to prevent
progress, and suddenly things can be a whole lot different (and better!)

> >
> > >  The
> > > browser belongs with the OS as much as the GUI does or the user
> management
> > > software does.
> >
> > Did you think this way before Microsoft superglued IE to the OS?  Do
> > you think it defines a "trend" because it's what Microsoft is doing?
> >
> Superglued? Gee, isn't IE removable from the OS or did the DOJ lie during
> that testimony too?

Superglue is removeable too; it's just really hard.

>
> > >  That they ding MS for the IE fiasco completely invalidates
> > > anything else they say.  It's like a physicist claiming the Earth is
> 5000
> > > years old then saying 'Now listen as I explain gravity'.
> >
> > I don't understand this.  What "IE fiasco?"  Did you even read the
> > findings of fact?  (You bet I did...every page!)
>
> I did and talked with our legal dept about it. Did you read it well? He said
> that only a "small number" of diehard geeks will choose to spend their time
> writing free software, and the computer industry is not embracing Linux or
> other more technically challenging Unix variants.
>
>  http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,32380,00.html
>
>  Linux aficionados who are applauding US District Judge Thomas Penfield
>  Jackson's bitter denunciation of their archrival Microsoft might want to
>  read the fine print first.
>
>  ( I like the part that says "other more technically challenging Unix
> variants," obviously implying that Linux is not technically challenging to
> other variants. Now, do you still agree with this guy or is it becoming
> obvious he is quite computer illiterate?)

He has opinions, which some agree with and some don't, even on
slashdot.  I agree that Linux is not going mainstream any time soon,
for example, based on my experiences with it.  And, in the Findings
themselves, even Microsoft agrees that Linux is not "a viable
competitive alternative to Windows for OEM manufacturers like
Hewlett-Packard and Compaq."

Btw, you didn't answer the question.  What are you referring to with
the "IE Fiasco?"  Bundling IE with Windows?  That's not the big
issue...the real problem is their motivations for doing so.

>
> > The Shame Eliminator: http://shameeliminator.cjb.net
> broken link

It's hosted on my personal computer, which isn't always up.

-Peter

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                   10-Nov-99 21:09:25
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 20:03:07
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (ZnU)

In article <DreW3.6858$[e-mail]>, "Drestin Black"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:38291399$1$obot$[e-mail]...
> > On <rr5W3.4941$[e-mail]>, on 11/10/99 at 03:15 AM,
> >    "Jason R." <[e-mail]> said:
> >
> > > The findings of fact are a joke.  Things are the only way they can be.
> > > The browser belongs with the OS as much as the GUI does or the user
> > > management software does.  That they ding MS for the IE fiasco
> > > completely invalidates anything else they say.  It's like a physicist
> > > claiming the Earth is 5000 years old then saying 'Now listen as I
> > > explain gravity'.
> >
> > Get your nose out of Bill's ass you fool. The findings are not a joke,
> > they are findings of fact in a major federal case. If you think they are
> > funny, you are a truly sick individual.
>
> As I'm sure the judges past two rulings were not jokes. But were overturned
> in appeals court anyway. Which, basically means, he was wrong 2/2 times.
> Looks like he's headed for 3/3!

Please learn something about the legal system. There were no findings of
fact in either of the earlier two cases. Findings of fact are generally
not overturned. Whatever he decides to do to MS might get over turned, but
the facts set down in the document released Friday will almost certainly
be accepted as truth in all appeals.

--
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 <[e-mail]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  10-Nov-99 21:13:16
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 20:03:07
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail]

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:31:24, Brad BARCLAY <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> "Vincent P. LaBella" wrote:
> >         I was a long time OS/2 user, since 2.0 (pre service pack) and I
> > just recently moved to NT.  I feel a need to share my experiences with
> > OS/2 and why I liked it and why I'm not using it anymore.
>
>     Okay - I've been active in the OS/2 community for at least 7 years now
> - so why is it that once every few weeks I see a lengthy post from some
> person I've never heard of or seen online before about why they're
> abandoning OS/2 for Windows?
>
>     Maybe what Vince is saying is the truth - but then again, how does
> anyone here know that he's ever seen OS/2, much less used it?
>
>     I've done a quick DejaNews search - and other than some recent posts
> attempting to sell some books and software (and this thread), Vincent
> has never posted anything to any of the OS/2 newsgroups - not even when
> searching the old Deja archives.
>
>     Vince, you have no right to complain.  You could have helped to make a
> difference, but you didn't.  I encourage you to use what platform works
> best for you, and if tha's Windows, more power to you.  But you've
> picked a bad time to suddenly become a part of the OS/2 community.  Why
> start posting now?  Just to try to drag other people down with you as
> well so you don't have to feel bad about the choice you were forced to
> make?  Doesn't it bother you that you're now poviding monetary support
> to the company that forced that choice?
>
> Brad BARCLAY
> (Not speaking for my employer).

This person is just _another_ ms-paid employee distracting the
attention of the OS/2 community to support OS/2.  Maybe BG is still
worried about OS/2 and why _it is still alive_.  I am 100% sure that
BG want OS/2 buried asap.  Sorry Bill, there are efforts to overcome
those 'weakness' in our OS.  Stop wasting your time post to windoze
groups and leave us in peace.

Maybe, ...maybe one day IBM'ers  could realize how to effectively
market OS/2.  and Bet that even MS knows that this is a GREAT OS.
Recent market developments are + for OS/2... We can keep going...





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

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

From: [e-mail]                          10-Nov-99 10:44:12
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 20:03:07
Subj: Re: The Words of the Judge

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >> >Bennie Nelson
> >> >I notice that Jeff felt that he should remove the compliment
> >> >I gave to him in my first post in this thread.
>
> >>Jeff Glatt
> >>I removed it because it was irrelevant to the discussion. Furthermore,
> >>I didn't come into the newsgroup fishing for compliments. That's not
> >>what the newsgroup is about.
>
> >> I'll leave the self-promotion to people like Tholen.
>
> >But posting derogatory remarks about someone else is quite acceptable
> >to you?
>
> To quote your buddy Tholen "Reading comprehension problems, Bennie?" I
> said that your compliments were irrelevant to the discussion.

Jeff, a negative statement was made about your programming efforts.  To
rebut that statement, a positive statement about your programming efforts
is required.  That positive statement (i.e., compliment) is relevant to
the discussion which is based primarily upon your experience as an OS/2
developer.

>
> >but compliments are irrelevant.
>
> Yes, compliments are irrelevant to this discussion. The discussion
> isn't about me. It's about developer's attitudes toward OS/2 and IBM,
> and why OS/2 developers gave up on OS/2. I simply noted that a lot of
> ex-OS/2 developers have echoed similiar sentiments about IBM and the
> OS/2 market as I have.

Positive statements about your programming work are relevant, because
they help lend credence to your statements concerning your experience
during the time frame when you were doing the programs.

>
> And I note that those sentiments aren't even recognized, let alone
> given any consideration, in the judge's uninformed "findings of fact".
> Perhaps if the judge had actually talked to ex-OS/2 developers, he'd
> know the real reason why they stopped supporting OS/2 rather than the
> contrived reason IBM told the judge (and the contrived reason that MS'
> competitors would prefer the judge to believe).

I don't believe the Judge's reasoning is contrived or flawed.  From the
vantage point of the one stepped on, it looks like the elephant turned
arbitrarily.  From a different perspective, it can be seen that the
elephant turned to avoid a tiger.  The Judge accepts this second
perspective.

>
> >My first compliment
> >was quite relevant in that it was a rebuttal of derogatory remarks
> >that were directed towards you.
>
> The derogatory remarks were irrelevant as well. Furthermore, they came
> from someone whose "opinions" I have no reason to give any credence
> to, nor even respect, so they don't bother me in the least. You need
> not worry about any sort of rebuttal to such inane, irrelevant
> nonsense. I already addressed it.

The derogatory remarks were meant to debunk your remarks concerning
your experience.  I.e., your programming work is worthless==your points
concerning your programming experience are worthless.

>
> >> >No, Jeff.  You missed my point.  Let me give a reverse example to try
> >> >and clarify what I said:
>
> >> >If I state that my experience with OS/2 has been very good and that
> >> >ALL PC users should therefore use OS/2, you would reject that point.
>
> >> No, *you* miss the point. I'm telling you that "my experience" as a
> >> developer who had to deal with IBM, and the conclusions that I've
> >> drawn from that about OS/2 and IBM, are *not* exclusive to me. In
> >> fact, they are very prevalent views among ex-OS/2 developers. *Talk*
> >> to some ex-OS/2 developers. Actually *LISTEN* to what they're saying
> >> instead of telling them what *you* believe they should be thinking
> >> about IBM and OS/2, and you'll see that your assumptions about them
> >> are incorrect (much like the judge, who apparently didn't even hear
> >> from any real OS/2 developers, such as Brad Wardell, doesn't know why
> >> ex-OS/2 developers left OS/2).
>
> >I'm not telling you what you should be thinking.  You also should not
> >expect us to believe that your experience is indicative of what all
> >former OS/2 developers experienced, either.
>
> I don't expect you to merely believe it. I expect you to go out there
> and actually talk to ex-OS/2 developers about IBM and OS/2, and learn
> what they think. Start with Brad Wardell's history of OS/2. You'll
> find plenty of evidence of IBM killing OS/2 and OS/2 developers there.
>
> That's what I did. I've been talking with, and listening to, other
> OS/2 developers for years. That's how I know that very few of them
> think highly of IBM.

I don't blame them, either.

>
> >However, your experience with OS/2 software development and IBM is
> >not unique.  I'm convinced of that.  I also believe that too many
> >OS/2 developers were trampled by the IBM elephant.  How many is too
> >many?  Some might say one is too many.
>
> "How many is many?"?????
>
> Oh christ, I sense a Tholensque diversion-imitation coming down the
> pike.

Actually, I think even one is too many.  Especially, if I happened to
be that one.  Seriously, I believe much damage was caused in the
industry by IBM's decisions vis-a-vis OS/2 support and the OS/2
developers.  IBM has some responsibility for that, but so does MS.

I believe that, if the Judge's decisions stand, litigation for damage
claims will go on for years.  If the findings of fact are accurate,
MS has harmed many businesses and individuals, directly and indirectly.
In this case, indirectly means influencing IBM to renege on its
committments to OS/2 developers.

>
> Listen, if you want to wrap a christmas bow around it and pretend that
> it's something else, you can do so. But those of us who know what
> really went down, are holding our noses while reading Jackson's
> decision. We know that IBM told fairy tales in that courtroom about
> what happened to OS/2 developers -- IBM's final, ignoble, insulting
> dismissal of them in typical IBM pass-the-buck fashion. IBM may be
> able to fool some technically illiterate judge, but IBM will not be
> fooling ex-OS/2 developers for a looooooooooong time. IBM may have the
> size of an elephant, but I'm willing to bet that ex-OS/2 developers
> will have the memory of one. It will be cold day in hell before some
> IBM employee will ever be able to wave his arms around and repeat the
> periodic IBM vaudeville routine of "Yeah, we made mistakes before, but
> this is the *NEW* IBM. *NOW* we really care and it's not going to be
> the same-old-business as usual", and get more than derisive chuckles
> from ex-OS/2 developers.

I agree with most of this.  I disagree about the court testimony.  I'll
take the court testimony over your opinion.

>
> >> And yet, none of this was even mentioned in the judge's "finding of
> >> fact", because the judge was never even informed about any of these
> >> things, and never even heard from the developers about whose
> >> intentions and experiences he drew erroneous conclusions.
>
> >Then that is the fault of Microsoft's legal team.
>
> Yes, it is. Microsoft's lawyers have indeed not shown a fraction of
> the competence and shrewdness that the software marketing and
> development team show.
>
> They should be sacked.

The legal team for MS seemed to share the arogance of MS.  As John Lennon
sang, "and so it's true, Pride goes before a fall."

>
> >And according to Judge Jackson, MS's actions and decisions forced
> >IBM into making decisions and taking actions that contributed to
> >financial hardships for OS/2 developers.
>
> But the real truth is that OS/2 developers figured out a long time ago
> that IBM was only paying cheap lip service to OS/2. And IBM certainly
> didn't care about any other entity except IBM, and IBM decisions
> reflected that -- business as usual for IBM.

I'll disagree here.  I believe a significant number of IBMers were
committed to supporting OS/2.  There was abundant evidence of this
at the release of v3 and v4.  There are still IBMers who are committed
to supporting OS/2: withness the releases of Java and Communicator.
Those are very good products.

But "significant number of IBMers" does not equal "IBM," especially
upper management.  I believe the tiger convinced the elephant to
back off.

>
> >> >How many vendors of DOS and Windows utilities have
> >> >been swallowed whole by the Redmond giant?
>
> >> Vendors of DOS and Windows utilities are not ex-OS/2 developers who
> >> were allegedly "forced" to abandon OS/2 because of some supposed "MS
> >> monopoly". In fact, those developers have no relevence to the issues
> >> that OS/2 developers faced.
>
> >Judge Jackson disagrees.
>
> Undoubtably because he didn't even talk to any ex-OS/2 developers. How
> would he even know who they were? He apparently relied exclusively
> upon IBM's testimony about OS/2, and frankly, most anything IBM would
> have to say about OS/2 nowadays should be deeply distrusted. Didn't
> you learn *anything* from those leaked IBM memos about the difference
> between what IBM says, and what that hand behind IBM's back is doing?

MS legal defense team is to blame if they overlooked significant facts
that would have exonerated MS.  You keep harping about IBM's culpability,
but MS is charged with felonious behavior.  What's more significant:
felonies or mistakes?

>
> Well, people who got screwed over by IBM certainly did.
>
> >> That's because you are not aware of, and truly underestimate, the
> >> extent to which ex-OS/2 developers believe that IBM killed OS/2.
>
> >If I underestimate anything, it's your knowledge on the subject.  I
> >don't believe you have direct knowledge to support your claims.
>
> That's because you obviously never talked much to OS/2 developers.
> (Or, perhaps since you never were an OS/2 developer yourself, you
> weren't privy to a lot of the things that went on in regard to such).
>
> >> >I know
> >> >that what you described occurred all too often (once is too much in my
> >> >estimation).  IBM should not have made the about face it did.  They
> >> >had a good start in supporting games, etc, but it needed a lot of
> >> >work.  I remember when the Joystick driver came out.  I believe two
> >> >guys coded that, and IBM eventually supported for it.  Then the decision
> >> >came, (I guess someone remembered the "B" means Business) and OS/2 was
> >> >no longer a gaming platform.
>
> >> You appear to responding to someone else's points. I never said
> >> anything about games at all in my posts.
>
> >Actually, I was giving an example of OS/2 developers providing a product
> >in response to IBM's stated intentions for OS/2 (i.e., IBM intended OS/2
> >for games).  IBM did a 180; OS/2 is not for games.  The MMOS2 reference
> >is another example of that.  IBM's 180 left a lot of people out to dry.
>
> >> >And MMOS2 needs a lot of work.  It was a good start, though.
>
> >> I never said anything about MMOS2 either. Maybe the problem is that
> >> you're not sure who is saying what in this thread? In that case, you
> >> should reserve your judgments about who is "wrong" until such time as
> >> you verify who has said what.
>
> >See above.
>
> Your posts are getting more and more schizophrenic and confusing as
> you go on. You seem to be disproving your own points, and then
> reiterating those disproven points.
>
> At this point, I'm not sure what you're trying to say or prove, if
> anything.

I'd intended the Joystick and MMOS2 examples to be supportive of YOUR
points about IBM's abandonment of promises made to OS/2 developers.
IBM made promises concerning those areas of the OS and reneged on the
promises.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               10-Nov-99 18:14:06
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 20:03:07
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Bennie Nelson wrote:
>
> Personality differences, on the other hand, are much more significant in
> this discussion than the concepts. That is why I requested individual
summaries
> of the ideas without reference to personalities.
>
> I note here that only Dave Tholen has taken the time to respond to the
> request.
>
> Marty?
> Mr. BASS?

Your request is one I cannot possibly address, as every point I have made has
been a counterpoint to a mistake Dave has made.  Thus I cannot give an
individual summary of ideas without reference to personalities.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                             09-Nov-99 22:17:22
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 20:03:07
Subj: Re: MicroSoft a Monopoly?!?!

From: "Doug Darrow" <[e-mail]>

On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 00:57:34 -0500, Bob Germer wrote:

>As much as I would like to say he was expelled, he wasn't. He is
>officially carried on Harvard's records as on leave of absence in good
>standing.
>
>Of course, Harvard may just be hoping he will drop some money on it.

It was only Papa's money (and political influence) that kept him on
their books 'in good standing.'


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

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

From: [e-mail]                         10-Nov-99 23:08:19
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 21:35:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

> The statement, "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" is
> ambiguous; it can be interpreted at least two ways.

Not logically.  The "two ways" you are referring to are "some"
functionality and "all" functionality.  The latter interpretation
is illogical, given that if all functionality were implemented,
then why not call it Java 1.2 instead of 1.1.8?

> I haven't commented on whether Java 1.1.8 actually does implement
> Java 1.2 functionality,

Thereby avoiding the issue, so that you can concentrate on a
diversion.

> beyond my observation regarding the statement itself, because I
> am admittedly ignorant in that area.

Try reading the evidence provided, Curtis.

] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security
] classes, Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's
] implementation of the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               10-Nov-99 18:29:27
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 21:35:27
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Illya Vaes wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
> >"David D. Huff Jr." wrote:
> >>The book has already (literally) been written on this one. I just wonder
> >>if the judgement (award) will be sufficient to make M$ suffer any.
> >I don't think the court is terribly concerned about making MS suffer.  In
> >fact, I hope they are not because it would accomplish nothing. What the
> >ourt should be concerned about is how to prevent MS from creating a similar
> >such situation in the future.
>
> 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 (criminal) courts are all about punishing, and rightly so because you
have
> ignored the rules of society.
> Prevention of future crimes is only of secondary relevance, and rightly so
> because you cannot be punished for what you have not done (yet).
"Protecting"
> one against oneself (preventing having the ability to commit a crime) can
only
> go so far...

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.

> >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.  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.

> >or the government's regulation of it.
>
> The judicial system != government in any modern society (it would be in an
MS
> society).

Did you miss the discussion in grade school that spoke of the three branches
of
government in the US, one of which being the Judicial?

> >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.

> 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.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         10-Nov-99 23:02:18
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 21:35:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Bennie Nelson writes:

> Curtis Bass wrote:

>> The statement, "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality" is
>> ambiguous; it can be interpreted at least two ways.

> Indeed.

Not logically.  The "two ways" being referred to by Curtis are "some"
functionality and "all" functionality.  The latter interpretation is
illogical, given that if all functionality were implemented, then why
not call it Java 1.2 instead of 1.1.8?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         10-Nov-99 23:05:05
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 21:35:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

> Curtis Bass wrote:

>> I have often reflected on this myself; one can only hope that he's
>> better at astronomy than he is at . . . well . . . whatever the hell
>> it is that he's doing here.  And I cannot help but have sympathy for
>> his students, especially those who have viewpoints (on *any* bloody
>> thing you could care to name) that differ from his . . .

> He probably just argues them into submission to his views with claims
> of irrelevancy and illogic..... 8)

What you think I probably do is irrelevant, Lucien.  I do find your
remark rather ironic, however, given your redundancy.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            10-Nov-99 17:05:29
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 21:35:27
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (Joe Ragosta)

In article <znu-1011991606230001@192.168.0.2>, [e-mail] (ZnU) wrote:

> In article <DreW3.6858$[e-mail]>, "Drestin Black"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:38291399$1$obot$[e-mail]...
> > > On <rr5W3.4941$[e-mail]>, on 11/10/99 at 03:15 AM,
> > >    "Jason R." <[e-mail]> said:
> > >
> > > > The findings of fact are a joke.  Things are the only way they can be.
> > > > The browser belongs with the OS as much as the GUI does or the user
> > > > management software does.  That they ding MS for the IE fiasco
> > > > completely invalidates anything else they say.  It's like a physicist
> > > > claiming the Earth is 5000 years old then saying 'Now listen as I
> > > > explain gravity'.
> > >
> > > Get your nose out of Bill's ass you fool. The findings are not a joke,
> > > they are findings of fact in a major federal case. If you think they are
> > > funny, you are a truly sick individual.
> >
> > As I'm sure the judges past two rulings were not jokes. But were
overturned
> > in appeals court anyway. Which, basically means, he was wrong 2/2 times.
> > Looks like he's headed for 3/3!
>
> Please learn something about the legal system. There were no findings of
> fact in either of the earlier two cases. Findings of fact are generally
> not overturned. Whatever he decides to do to MS might get over turned, but
> the facts set down in the document released Friday will almost certainly
> be accepted as truth in all appeals.

The interesting thing is that the way he laid out the Findings of Fact,
it's hard to imagine any grounds for overturning his eventual judgement.

If you accept the Findings of Fact (which the appeals court pretty much
has to do), the verdict is pretty self-evident.

--
Regards,

Joe Ragosta

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                10-Nov-99 23:02:21
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 21:35:27
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (James Himmelman)

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:31:24, Brad BARCLAY <[e-mail]>
wrote:

> "Vincent P. LaBella" wrote:
> >         I was a long time OS/2 user, since 2.0 (pre service pack) and I
> > just recently moved to NT.  I feel a need to share my experiences with
> > OS/2 and why I liked it and why I'm not using it anymore.

>     Okay - I've been active in the OS/2 community for at least 7 years now
> - so why is it that once every few weeks I see a lengthy post from some
> person I've never heard of or seen online before about why they're
> abandoning OS/2 for Windows?

Brad, the whole post is a lie. I was hoping that most people would see
that and not even bother responding. The post -COULD- have been
credible right up till the end, when he gave himself away by
practically begging the rest of us OS/2 users to switch to Windows.

I have been an OS/2 user for many years. If I ever felt the need to
move to another platform, I might monitor these groups on occasion to
see what's new, but I wouldn't dream of trying to get the rest of you
to switch. I understand that choice of operating systems is based
largely on personal and independent needs. What I need/want may have
very little to do with what you need/want.

He showed his hand in the end.

[[[ James Himmelman - [e-mail] ]]]

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  10-Nov-99 23:41:25
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 21:35:27
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Steve Drewell <[e-mail]>

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 at 07:29 -0500, Bob Germer <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>> Well, if you want to get silly, then who invented moving pictures
>> (cinema), television, the steam engine, the internal combustion engine,
>> the computer, pizza, radio. All those things were major technological
>> advances (apart from pizza) and have been used throughout the world by
>> millions of people to enhance their quality of life. But who invented
>> them? Hint...none were invented in the USA.

>Thomas Edison invented moving pictures. He was born in New Jersey in the
>United States. Marconi was living in and working in the United States
>when he successfully invented radio.

Bob, I've found a lot of references to Edison regarding motion pictures,
but I thought that the motion picture camera was invented by an Englishman
who dragged a policeman off the street to be his first subject on film.
Unfortunately, I cannot find any web-based references to it (which doesn't
mean it's not true). However, regarding Marconi, I think you've been
misinformed. You may find the following web page of interest:

http://www.gec.com/marconi  (in particular the 1896-1897 link).

>In most of the world, Philo Farnsworth a native born citizen of the
>United States, working for RCA is credited with developing the first
>television. Only some chauvinistic Brits claim otherwise. What is known
>today as pizza was an American invention introduced to Italy by US troops
>in 1944.

Chauvinistic Brits?
Another web page which may be of interest is hosted by one of the USA's
great educational establishments, so it can't be wrong :-) :

http://www-douzzer.ai.mit.edu:8080/conspiracy/farnsworth.html

Note the paragraph starting with "Television's earliest pioneer was John
Logie Baird." (who was Scottish). Also note that the article goes on to
say that "In early 1923 he decided his next move would be to invent
television. Baird produced the world's first TV picture that year, the
first public demonstration in 1925, the first government license in 1926,
and the first color and transatlantic transmissions in 1928." Earlier in
the article, it is written that Farsworth "successfully displayed the
first TV picture in 1927". The technologies behind the TVs may have been
different, but that's a different argument. John Logie Baird was the first
person to invent television.

FWIW, I'll concede on the pizza theory :-)

Cheers,
Steve
--
Steve Drewell
_____________________________________________________________
Using IBM OS/2 Warp 4 running 27 processes with 142 threads.
Machine uptime is 4 days, 16 hours, 53 mins and 46 secs.
_____________________________________________________________


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                10-Nov-99 23:07:24
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 21:35:27
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (James Himmelman)

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 21:13:33, [e-mail] wrote:
> Maybe, ...maybe one day IBM'ers  could realize how to effectively
> market OS/2.  and Bet that even MS knows that this is a GREAT OS.
> Recent market developments are + for OS/2... We can keep going...

Currently, IBM's problem is not its inability to market OS/2
effectively, it is its unwillingness to even try.

OS/2 is basically living on it's own right now, with IBM doing what it
has to to keep it functional, but doing nothing to expand its market.

[[[ James Himmelman - [e-mail] ]]]

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

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

From: [e-mail]...               10-Nov-99 18:37:16
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 21:35:27
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

Message sender: [e-mail]

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:znu-1011991606230001@192.168.0.2...
> In article <DreW3.6858$[e-mail]>, "Drestin Black"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:38291399$1$obot$[e-mail]...
> > > On <rr5W3.4941$[e-mail]>, on 11/10/99 at 03:15
AM,
> > >    "Jason R." <[e-mail]> said:
> > >
> > > > The findings of fact are a joke.  Things are the only way they can
be.
> > > > The browser belongs with the OS as much as the GUI does or the user
> > > > management software does.  That they ding MS for the IE fiasco
> > > > completely invalidates anything else they say.  It's like a
physicist
> > > > claiming the Earth is 5000 years old then saying 'Now listen as I
> > > > explain gravity'.
> > >
> > > Get your nose out of Bill's ass you fool. The findings are not a joke,
> > > they are findings of fact in a major federal case. If you think they
are
> > > funny, you are a truly sick individual.
> >
> > As I'm sure the judges past two rulings were not jokes. But were
overturned
> > in appeals court anyway. Which, basically means, he was wrong 2/2 times.
> > Looks like he's headed for 3/3!
>
> Please learn something about the legal system.
I have, thank you.
>There were no findings of
> fact in either of the earlier two cases.
Did I say there were?

>Findings of fact are generally
> not overturned.
True. I was refering to his previous MS related rulings, both were
overturned.

>Whatever he decides to do to MS might get over turned, but
> the facts set down in the document released Friday will almost certainly
> be accepted as truth in all appeals.
They will be argued as truths but these are not facts set in stone. It is
possible to rule against a finding of fact in another proceeding. Check yer
precidents.




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

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

From: [e-mail]                      10-Nov-99 15:13:10
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 21:35:27
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Peter Ammon <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> > Peter Ammon <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:[e-mail]...
> > > "Jason R." wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Uhh, who the hell wants an OS with no real, widespread apps?
> > >
> > > Yes, that is the point.  The applications barrier to entry is the
> > > reason that Windows retains its dominance, not because of any real
> > > superiority in the OS ITSELF.
> > >
> >
> > What barrier are you referring to?  If it exists which windows platform
are
> > you referring to?
>
> The one that's mentioned 68 times in the Findings of Facts.  Maybe
> you should read that?
>
> http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html
>

Have read, nice legal fanatsy. What barriers, in reality, not legal fantasy?

> >
> > > >  Windows
> > > > _should_ be the dominant OS because it's easier for the clueless
masses
> > to
> > > > learn one environment.
> > >
> > > Explain why BeOS shouldn't be, or Mac OS shouldn't be, or Linux
> > > shouldn't be, then.
> > >
> >
> > Because they aren't?
>
> 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.

> >
> > > >
> > > > Windows has the desktop market because it is, bitter nerds or no
bitter
> > > > nerds, the best and _only_ real choice for 95% of all desktops.
> > >
> > > Bah.  It's the best for some.  The best for 95%?  Yeah right.  How
> > > many newbie computer users really know what's the best for them?
> > >
> >
> > And how many IT managers know what's best for their new users?  Alot I'd
say
> > since business users outnumber home users.
>
> Nobody is punishing Microsoft because they control the desktop
> market.  They are being punished because they use that control to
> restrict innovation in other companies that might jeopardize that
> monopoly.  Although I dispute the fact that Windows is the best
> choice for 95% of users, whether it is or not is not relevant to the
> case.  What IS relevant is how Microsoft ensures that Windows
> REMAINS the best choice, by stomping down all other possibilities.
> See the bit about Netscape and Java in the Findings of Fact, for examples.
>

That is yet to be proven.

> >
> > > >  Other OS's
> > > > have their place on the server in many situations.  There exists
> > competition
> > > > (again - like it or not) in every market in which MS competes.
> > >
> > > So?  The point is that there is not as much competition as there
> > > should be or would be had Microsoft not abused their monopoly power.
> > >
> >
> > That remains to be proven.
>
>
> The judge decided, after the long drawn out trial and hearing both
> sides, that:
>
> "Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling
> innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that
> exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft."
>
> What kind of proof are you looking for, exactly?
>

The corrolation of these facts, shakey as they are, with the Law.

> >
> > > >
> > > > The findings of fact are a joke.  Things are the only way they can
be.
> > >
> > > Pessimist.  Those who don't use Windows know better.
> > >
> >
> > Objective opinion here.
>
> So you think that we are doomed to have a single computer company
> breaking the metaphorical kneecaps of all who dare oppose it?  I
> hope I never get to that level of sheepdom.
>

Nope, IBM was shaken out of that mode my Microsoft, giving us all choice.

> >
> > > >  The
> > > > browser belongs with the OS as much as the GUI does or the user
> > management
> > > > software does.
> > >
> > > Did you think this way before Microsoft superglued IE to the OS?  Do
> > > you think it defines a "trend" because it's what Microsoft is doing?
> > >
> >
> > How about because, KDE, Gnome, MacOS are also following.
>
> Explain.  I don't see Apple integrating their own, or even any,
> browser with the Mac OS.  I don't see that in Gnome either, which I
> have used.  I haven't used KDE, so I can't comment.
>

It will happen because it is a good idea.

> And besides, even if you still believe that that is the case, then
> how do you explain Microsoft's conduct towards Netscape, where they
> discouraged developers to write their applications using the APIs
> that Netscape exposed?  Are you saying that Microsoft is bucking the
> trend that they created?  The simplest explanation, and the one that
> the judge decided is correct, is that the only reason they (cough)
> "integrated" IE with Windows was to, as Alchin (a senior executive
> in Microsoft) put it:
>

Netscape develped a crap application, and lost marketshare because of it. No
other reason.

>
> "You see browser share as job 1. . . . I do not feel we are going to
> win on our current path. We are not leveraging Windows from a
> marketing perspective and we are trying to copy Netscape and make IE
> into a platform. We do not use our strength -- which is that we have
> an installed base of Windows and we have a strong OEM shipment
> channel for Windows. Pitting browser against browser is hard since
> Netscape has 80% marketshare and we have <20%. . . . I am convinced
> we have to use Windows -- this is the one thing they don't have. . .
> . We have to be competitive with features, but we need something
> more -- Windows integration.
>

MS Broke up another monopoly, Netscapes.

> If you agree that Windows is a huge asset, then it follows quickly
> that we are not investing sufficiently in finding ways to tie IE and
> Windows together. This must come from you. . . . Memphis
> [Microsoft's code-name for Windows 98] must be a simple upgrade, but
> most importantly it must be killer on OEM shipments so that Netscape
> never gets a chance on these systems."
>

Netscape, in it's current and recent forms doesn't deserve diskspace for
technical reasons.

> >
> > > >  That they ding MS for the IE fiasco completely invalidates
> > > > anything else they say.  It's like a physicist claiming the Earth is
> > 5000
> > > > years old then saying 'Now listen as I explain gravity'.
> > >
> > > I don't understand this.  What "IE fiasco?"  Did you even read the
> > > findings of fact?  (You bet I did...every page!)
> > >
> >
> > There are several statements in that statement that indicate to me that
the
> > Judge wasn't totally aware of the whole concept of IE, Explorer and
> > integration.  IE, His opinion was just too much in line with the
Netscape
> > and Sun expressions that started this entire fiasco.
>
> Then take it from the horse's mouth.  I gave you the quote above.
>

That just confirms that the Judge was in the pocket of the whiners that
brought the case.

> -Peter
>
> --
> The Shame Eliminator: http://shameeliminator.cjb.net


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



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

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

From: [e-mail]                               10-Nov-99 18:41:25
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 21:35:27
Subj: Re: "All bets are off regarding Windows" - IBM

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Brad BARCLAY wrote:
>
> Jeff Glatt wrote:
> > Absolutely. 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.
>
>         Actually, if you check the latest published numbers, IBM's big-iron
> business has actually faced a decline this year (blamed on Y2K issues),
> and the division that has been it's "bread and butter" has been the
> Software division.  So far this year, AS/400, RS/6000 and S/390 revenues
> have been down.

As a member of the server group, I can vouch for this.  IBM explained it off
that in previous quarters many companies bought spare machines devoted to Y2K
testing, giving the false impression of an increasing trend in revenue.  This
lead to falsely inflated hopes of revenue which turned out to actually
decrease
because demand for new servers was lower, being that many companies now had
"spare" boxes they no longer needed for Y2K testing.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                   11-Nov-99 00:25:13
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 21:35:27
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (ZnU)

In article <[e-mail]>, "Drestin Black"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:znu-1011991606230001@192.168.0.2...

[snip]

> >Findings of fact are generally
> > not overturned.
>
> True. I was refering to his previous MS related rulings, both were
> overturned.

You implied that these findings of fact would suffer the same fate.

> >Whatever he decides to do to MS might get over turned, but
> > the facts set down in the document released Friday will almost certainly
> > be accepted as truth in all appeals.
>
> They will be argued as truths but these are not facts set in stone. It is
> possible to rule against a finding of fact in another proceeding. Check yer
> precidents.

Yes, they _can_ be overturned. They generally aren't.

--
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 <[e-mail]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          11-Nov-99 00:50:25
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 21:35:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>> >Curtis Bass wrote:
>> >>
>> >> 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 text.
>> >>
>> >> Good for you, Dave.
>> >>
>> >> > Curtis Bass writes:
>> >> >
>> >> > > Regardless of whose file it was based on, the claim was erroneous.
>> >> >
>> >> > How does that make your copy of the file relevant, Curtis?
>> >> >
>> >> > > My copy proves the error of the claim.
>> >> >
>> >> > My claim wasn't based on your copy of the file, Curtis, thus your copy
>> >> > of the file is indeed irrelevant to my claim.
>> >>
>> >> Typical circular evasiveness on Dave's part.
>> >>
>> >> Are you listening, Karel?  Bennie?  Still astounded by Dave's, uh,
>> >> "logic?"

>>Bennie Nelson
>> >Jeff Glatt is the one responsible for
>> >the "noise" you're quoting here.

>> You don't even know what the hell you're talking about. *Nothing* that
>> Curtis is quoting above is from me.

>Wrong.

To quote your buddy Tholen "Bullshit".

I say again. NO quotes of mine appeared in the message of Curtis'
where you claimed that my quotes appear.

The fact that you don't realize this reveals that you're not competent
enough to read attribution lines.

Are you, in fact, competent at anything, or are you demonstrating an
unusual amount of incompetence here?

NOTE: Tholen supporters tend to lack competence. Bennie shows that
he's no exception.

>Mr. BASS swallowed your cast, hook-line-and-stinker. You are
>the one who has repeatedly posted, in this thread and other threads,
>the nonsense that Mr. BASS cited.

Oh dear, now WHAT is it that your delusional mind has imagined Curtis
to be swallowing?

>I'd include references from DejaNews

Except that there are obviously no quotes of mine appearing in Curtis'
post in which you allege that he is quoting me.

>but that doesn't make any difference to you.

That's true. It does not make any difference to me that your
delusional mind thinks that such DejaNews references exist.

>Whenever I've used urls to debunk your posts,

Hahahahah! You're really are amusing! That would be the URL you quoted
concerning some IBM employee which you've used as "proof" to document
your misguided views about Win32 software requiring VxD's to run?

Lately, your posts are so confused and misguided that, beyond merely
underscoring how little sense you make and how little you know, they
"debunk" absolutely nothing.

>you simply stop responding to the thread and wait for another one
>to spout your redundant diatribes.

>So, to keep this one alive for a while longer, I won't include
>relevant urls.

Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiight. Tell your doctor that your current medication
is having some notable, negative side effects.

>> Get a clue. You're obviously no more "competent" than your buddy
>>Tholen, and are prone to make wild, totally WRONG assumptions about
>>who said what.

>Ah, competence.  Good thing you brought that up.  How about these
>for competence, Jeff?

Your lies hardly demonstrate competence. In fact, the witless manner
in which you lie, especially about having dismissed Tholen's
destractors as "emotionally blocked" people who "aren't skilled at
logic" reveals you to be a dishonest person whose opinions do not
deserve to be given merit.

[Much misguided nonsense and lies from Bennie Nelson deleted. Although
Bennie may not be very clever, I'm too smart to fall for his pathetic,
I'm-pretending-to-be-Tholen vaudeville routine and hand-waving
distractions. The fact that he actually thinks Tholen is "skilled at
logic" reveals just how plodding Bennie's powers of "perception" truly
are].

>Since these three have made so many posts on the subject, I thought
>one more from each would not be asking for much.

What makes you think that your inability to follow the thread and
understand them so far is suddenly going to disappear if they simply
post yet another reiteration of their points? To quote your buddy
Tholen, "That's illogical".

>The three summaries could then be compared.

Um, they HAVE been comparing what they're saying all along, in arguing
their respective positions.

It's just that you seem unable to keep up intellectually. You appear
to need them to repeat what they've said, over and over and over (not
that most of them haven't done exactly that ALREADY in trying to get
points through Tholen's exceedingly thick skull) before you can even
begin to figure out what they're saying.

Ok, it isn't nice, but it needs to be said. Bennie, you're *slow*.
(And I don't mean just in terms of time).

>I have posited in
>this thread the idea that there are conflicts of communication due
>to variations of usage of the English language.

So? You say LOTS of things that are irrelevant.

>Language variations are an impediment to communication.

Well, I don't think that you'll ever figure this one out (because
you're *slow*), but the real and only "impediment" to communication is
that Tholen is a moronic asshole who deliberately spews nonsense and
chooses to utter ridiculously stupid rhetoric that results in no
meaningful "communication" whatsoever, simply because his only intent
is to harrass those people expressing opinions that this renowned kook
and mentally insane dimwit doesn't want to hear about his pet product.

>It is my opinion that

I've heard enough of your opinions to realize that they make little
sense and have few insights that are relevant to anything that gets
posted here.

This one that you're blathering now is just another example.

I won't waste my time with it.

>I note here that only Dave Tholen has taken the time to respond to the
>request.

Nonsense. He merely spouted more of the same, idiotic, meaningless
rhetoric that pompous, slow, OS/2 Zealots like you actually think
sounds good.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 00:46:05
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 21:35:27
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

Joe Ragosta <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> In article <znu-1011991606230001@192.168.0.2>, [e-mail] (ZnU)
wrote:
>
> > In article <DreW3.6858$[e-mail]>, "Drestin Black"
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > > news:38291399$1$obot$[e-mail]...
> > > > On <rr5W3.4941$[e-mail]>, on 11/10/99 at 03:15
AM,
> > > >    "Jason R." <[e-mail]> said:
> > > >
> > > > > The findings of fact are a joke.  Things are the only way they can
be.
> > > > > The browser belongs with the OS as much as the GUI does or the
user
> > > > > management software does.  That they ding MS for the IE fiasco
> > > > > completely invalidates anything else they say.  It's like a
physicist
> > > > > claiming the Earth is 5000 years old then saying 'Now listen as I
> > > > > explain gravity'.
> > > >
> > > > Get your nose out of Bill's ass you fool. The findings are not a
joke,
> > > > they are findings of fact in a major federal case. If you think they
are
> > > > funny, you are a truly sick individual.
> > >
> > > As I'm sure the judges past two rulings were not jokes. But were
overturned
> > > in appeals court anyway. Which, basically means, he was wrong 2/2
times.
> > > Looks like he's headed for 3/3!
> >
> > Please learn something about the legal system. There were no findings of
> > fact in either of the earlier two cases. Findings of fact are generally
> > not overturned. Whatever he decides to do to MS might get over turned,
but
> > the facts set down in the document released Friday will almost certainly
> > be accepted as truth in all appeals.
>
> The interesting thing is that the way he laid out the Findings of Fact,
> it's hard to imagine any grounds for overturning his eventual judgement.
>

You must learn to try harder. Not give up so easily.

> If you accept the Findings of Fact (which the appeals court pretty much
> has to do), the verdict is pretty self-evident.

Gee, guess we can just skip the rest of the legal system eh?




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

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 00:47:23
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 21:35:27
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:znu-1011991921580001@192.168.0.2...
> In article <[e-mail]>, "Drestin Black"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:znu-1011991606230001@192.168.0.2...
>
> [snip]
>
> > >Findings of fact are generally
> > > not overturned.
> >
> > True. I was refering to his previous MS related rulings, both were
> > overturned.
>
> You implied that these findings of fact would suffer the same fate.
I did not imply this. I am saying I think his final verdict will be
overturned. I think his findings of fact is weak.

>
> > >Whatever he decides to do to MS might get over turned, but
> > > the facts set down in the document released Friday will almost
certainly
> > > be accepted as truth in all appeals.
> >
> > They will be argued as truths but these are not facts set in stone. It
is
> > possible to rule against a finding of fact in another proceeding. Check
yer
> > precidents.
>
> Yes, they _can_ be overturned. They generally aren't.
But they can.

>
> --
> 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.

Relax...


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               10-Nov-99 20:14:18
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 21:35:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Below, Dave tries to convince Curtis to take up his ways and discuss something
he knows nothing about.  Most people feel (rightfully so) that if they have no
knowledge of something that they aren't qualified to discuss it.  This never
stopped Dave, however.

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Curtis Bass writes:
> > I haven't commented on whether Java 1.1.8 actually does implement
> > Java 1.2 functionality,
>
> Thereby avoiding the issue, so that you can concentrate on a
> diversion.
>
> > beyond my observation regarding the statement itself, because I
> > am admittedly ignorant in that area.
>
> Try reading the evidence provided, Curtis.
>
> ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
> ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security
> ] classes, Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's
> ] implementation of the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          11-Nov-99 01:20:11
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 21:35:27
Subj: Re: The Words of the Judge

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>>>>>Bennie Nelson
>>>>>I notice that Jeff felt that he should remove the compliment
>>>>>I gave to him in my first post in this thread.

>>>>Jeff Glatt
>>>>I removed it because it was irrelevant to the discussion. Furthermore,
>>>>I didn't come into the newsgroup fishing for compliments. That's not
>>>>what the newsgroup is about.

>> >> I'll leave the self-promotion to people like Tholen.

>> >But posting derogatory remarks about someone else is quite acceptable
>> >to you?

>> To quote your buddy Tholen "Reading comprehension problems, Bennie?" I
>> said that your compliments were irrelevant to the discussion.

>Jeff, a negative statement was made about your programming efforts.

Duh, I know. So? It was made by someone whose opinion doesn't matter.
And it's completely irrelevant to the topic of why OS/2 developers
abandoned OS/2.

How many times do people have to keep repeating and explaining the
same things, over and over, to you???

>To
>rebut that statement, a positive statement about your programming efforts
>is required.

I already explained why your rebuttal wasn't needed.

>That positive statement (i.e., compliment) is relevant to
>the discussion which is based primarily upon your experience as an OS/2
>developer.

No, the discussion is *NOT* "based primarily upon [my] experience as
an OS/2 developer". The discussion is about why OS/2 developers
stopped supporting OS/2, and why the judge's assumptions about why
they stopped supporting OS/2 are incorrect.

>Positive statements about your programming work are relevant, because
>they help lend credence to your statements concerning your experience
>during the time frame when you were doing the programs.

It's not *my* experience I'm talking about. It's the experience of
LOTS of OS/2 developers, such as the people who worked on ColorWorks
and Describe, and Brad Wardell, and others.

>I don't believe the Judge's reasoning is contrived or flawed.

Who cares what you think about why OS/2 developers stopped supporting
OS/2? Your beliefs don't even resemble the opinions of ex-OS/2
developers concerning why they left OS/2 and IBM.

>The Judge accepts this second perspective.

And neither does his perspective. Maybe if he had actually heard from
some ex-OS/2 developers instead of (literally) sleeping through the
trail, he'd know something about them.

>The derogatory remarks were meant to debunk your remarks concerning
>your experience.  I.e., your programming work is worthless==your points
>concerning your programming experience are worthless.

Who cares? Those remarks were uttered by a clueless fool (who BTW has
since disappeared).

We've gone well beyond that. Do try to keep up, Bennie.

>> >> >If I state that my experience with OS/2 has been very good and that
>> >> >ALL PC users should therefore use OS/2, you would reject that point.

>> >> No, *you* miss the point. I'm telling you that "my experience" as a
>> >> developer who had to deal with IBM, and the conclusions that I've
>> >> drawn from that about OS/2 and IBM, are *not* exclusive to me. In
>> >> fact, they are very prevalent views among ex-OS/2 developers.

>> >I'm not telling you what you should be thinking.  You also should not
>> >expect us to believe that your experience is indicative of what all
>> >former OS/2 developers experienced, either.

>> I don't expect you to merely believe it. I expect you to go out there
>> and actually talk to ex-OS/2 developers about IBM and OS/2, and learn
>> what they think. Start with Brad Wardell's history of OS/2. You'll
>> find plenty of evidence of IBM killing OS/2 and OS/2 developers there.

>> That's what I did. I've been talking with, and listening to, other
>> OS/2 developers for years. That's how I know that very few of them
>> think highly of IBM.

>I don't blame them, either.

And yet you appear to be completely unaware that this is what so many
of them think, and even have the nerve to argue with anyone who points
out that this is what they think. Typical.

>I believe much damage was caused in the
>industry by IBM's decisions vis-a-vis OS/2 support and the OS/2
>developers.  IBM has some responsibility for that, but so does MS.

How can MS be responsible for the way IBM chose to deal with OS/2
developers???

>In this case, indirectly means influencing IBM to renege on its
>committments to OS/2 developers.

Oh this is rich. What specific "commitments to OS/2 developers" did
Microsoft force IBM to renege upon?

>> >And according to Judge Jackson, MS's actions and decisions forced
>> >IBM into making decisions and taking actions that contributed to
>> >financial hardships for OS/2 developers.

>> But the real truth is that OS/2 developers figured out a long time ago
>> that IBM was only paying cheap lip service to OS/2. And IBM certainly
>> didn't care about any other entity except IBM, and IBM decisions
>> reflected that -- business as usual for IBM.

>I'll disagree here.  I believe a significant number of IBMers were
>committed to supporting OS/2.

Frankly, there were more IBM employees who wanted it dead than there
were ones who were "committed" to it (plus the fact that the ones who
were "committed" to it --- as opposed to paying cheap lip service to
it --- tended to be low-level, powerless IBM employees who really
couldn't do much to circumvent IBM execs from giving OS/2 the axe).

>> >> I never said anything about MMOS2 either. Maybe the problem is that
>> >> you're not sure who is saying what in this thread? In that case, you
>> >> should reserve your judgments about who is "wrong" until such time as
>> >> you verify who has said what.
>>
>> >See above.
>>
>> Your posts are getting more and more schizophrenic and confusing as
>> you go on. You seem to be disproving your own points, and then
>> reiterating those disproven points.
>>
>> At this point, I'm not sure what you're trying to say or prove, if
>> anything.
>
>I'd intended the Joystick and MMOS2 examples to be supportive of YOUR
>points about IBM's abandonment of promises made to OS/2 developers.
>IBM made promises concerning those areas of the OS and reneged on the
>promises.

Again, I repeat. Your posts are getting more and more schizophrenic
and confusing as you go on. You seem to be disproving your own points,
and then reiterating those disproven points.

At this point, I'm not sure what you're trying to say or prove, if
anything.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          11-Nov-99 01:31:19
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Brad BARCLAY
> I've been active in the OS/2 community for at least 7 years now
>- so why is it that once every few weeks I see a lengthy post from some
>person I've never heard of or seen online before about why they're
>abandoning OS/2 for Windows?

This must be a trick question, but I'll answer it anyway:

That's because OS/2 is a dying platform, and its userbase has been
migrating away from it for a number of years now.

Welcome to the real world. Watch that first step down. It trips a LOT
of people.

>you've
>picked a bad time to suddenly become a part of the OS/2 community.

Um, he didn't just start using OS/2 lately. Didn't you read his post?

>Why start posting now?

Why advocate for OS/2 anymore when even many of the people who DID use
it have abandoned it (and the manufacturer of it has turned it into
the target of yet another "exit strategy").

Now THAT seems pointless.

>Just to try to drag other people down with you as
>well so you don't have to feel bad about the choice you were forced to
>make?  Doesn't it bother you that you're now poviding monetary support
>to the company that forced that choice?

No, he doesn't feel bad. He said that he likes NT now, and prefers
using it to OS/2. Didn't you read his post?

>Brad BARCLAY
>(Not speaking for my employer).

His employer is IBM. That says it all

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          11-Nov-99 01:36:05
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

>On <[e-mail]>, on 11/10/99 at 06:51 AM,
>   [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt) said:

>> You have to wonder if IBM hires an employee to go around and
>> surreptiously tape pieces of paper to the backs of OS/2 Advocates that
>> read "Kick Me"

>No, they pinned the one on your back which said "F**K YOU"

Oh, that's the one IBM gave to *EVERY* OS/2 developer and enduser.

And when IBM did, it was only the OS/2 zealots who replied "Thank you"

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

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 02:36:03
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Paul 'Z' Ewande⌐" <[e-mail]>

Peter Ammon <[e-mail]> a Θcrit dans le message :
[e-mail]...

<TRIM> A bunch of stuff </SNIP>

> Then explain why Mac OS's share is so low.  Are you really prepared
> to argue that Windows is easier to use for newbies 19 times out of
> 20?

Apple didn't allow clones [there was a hiatus but still] and you had to pat
thru the nose to deserve the privilege to own a easier to use Mac. That's
why many people chosed the good enough but way cheaper PC.

Of course, I may be dead wrong about this. :)

<TRIM> Some more stuff </SNIP>

Paul 'Z' Ewande



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

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

From: [e-mail]                          11-Nov-99 01:41:03
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>"Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

>Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>news:38291399$1$obot$[e-mail]...
>> On <rr5W3.4941$[e-mail]>, on 11/10/99 at 03:15 AM,
>>    "Jason R." <[e-mail]> said:
>>
>> > The findings of fact are a joke.  Things are the only way they can be.
>> > The browser belongs with the OS as much as the GUI does or the user
>> > management software does.  That they ding MS for the IE fiasco
>> > completely invalidates anything else they say.  It's like a physicist
>> > claiming the Earth is 5000 years old then saying 'Now listen as I
>> > explain gravity'.

>> Get your nose out of Bill's ass you fool. The findings are not a joke,
>> they are findings of fact in a major federal case. If you think they are
>> funny, you are a truly sick individual.

>As I'm sure the judges past two rulings were not jokes. But were overturned
>in appeals court anyway. Which, basically means, he was wrong 2/2 times.
>Looks like he's headed for 3/3!

That's ok. Maybe if he gets a long enough record of delivering losing
decisions, they'll reduce his caseload and then he'll have time to
sleep at home instead of literally in the court room during his trials

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         11-Nov-99 01:29:06
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>> its opacity to you is merely due to your reading comprehension
>>> problem.

>> Illogical, given that I can't comprehend something that isn't there to
>> be comprehended.

> That you cannot comprehend my statements is clear, yes.

Having more reading comprehension problems, Lucien?  I was referring
to statements that you haven't made.

> My meaning is evident,

Obviously not.

> but, due to your reading comprehension problem, it is opaque to you.

What alleged "reading comprehension problem", Lucien?  I can't read what
isn't there to be read.

>>>> On the contrary, my tests demonstrate that your argument is wrong.

>>> They do nothing of the kind.

>> Prove it, if you think you can, Lucien.

> Because they are composed only of invective and irrelevancies,

That is a rather blatant lie.  See below for the restored evidence.

> your "tests" do not demonstrate any error in my argument.

On the contrary, they do.  Of course, you're quite welcome to try
and explain how the tests do not prove you wrong, but you've chosen
to ignore them every time that I've presented them.

>>>>> They are merely nonsense laden with invective,

>>>> Where is the alleged invective in those two simple tests, Lucien?

>>> Read the "tests".

>> Here they are, Lucien.

> Here are two examples of invective from your "tests":

> "Yet more evidence that you're playing your own 'infantile game'.."

That's another rather blatant lie, Lucien.  That line does not appear
in either simple test.  I had even inserted the two simple tests at this
point, but you deleted them and inserted something that isn't from
either test in a futile attempt to prove your claim.

> and
>
> "...Or are you really that idiotic?"

That's another rather blatant lie, Lucien.  That line does not appear
in either simple test.  I had even inserted the two simple tests at this
point, but you deleted them and inserted something that isn't from
either test in a futile attempt to prove your claim.

> Note that these statements are irrelevant and intended only to divert
> attention away from the topic at hand.

Note that neither statement is from either of the two simple tests,
Lucien.  You are clearly lying in a futile attempt to save face.

>>> My meaning is clear;

>> Obviously not, Lucien.

>>> reread the statements.

>> That won't make your explanation magically appear, Lucien.

> Apparently it won't mitigate your reading comprehension problem.

What alleged "reading comprehension problem", Lucien?  I can't read what
isn't there to be read.

>>> Nonetheless, let's try again.

>> Let's try again to get you to understand the flaws in your argument.

> You've demonstrated no flaws in it;

On the contrary, I have.  Suffering from reading comprehension problems,
Lucien?  Given that you keep deleting the evidence, it sure looks like
you do understand how it demonstrates the flaws in your argument, but
you don't want to face reality.

> furthermore, you and I are in agreement concerning the ambiguity WRT
> quantification in the two situations.

Which two situations, Lucien?  Your thesis doesn't even apply to the
present situation.

> Let's go over our statements again:

Let's try again to get you to understand the flaws in your argument.

> Here is your statement regarding the JDK sentence:
>
> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

See what I mean about your reading comprehension problem, Lucien?
I've told you several times now that the above statement does not
concern the JDK sentence, and I've also told you why, namely because
the JDK sentence involves the presence of other information.  Yet
you simply delete that explanation and repeat your erroneous claims,
along with deleting the two simple tests that prove why you're wrong.

> Here you correctly describe the underlying ambiguity, noting that the
> alternation appears in the absence of "other information".

There is no absence of "other information" in the JDK sentence, Lucien.

> Here is my thesis statement again:
>
> The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
> ambiguous WRT quantification in the absence of peri-verbal information.

Well, at least you didn't repeat the same quotation this time.  I see
you deleted the evidence for your gaffe.  I'm not surprised.  Too
embarrassing for you, Lucien?

> Here I correctly describe the underlying ambiguity, noting that the
> alternation appears in the absence of peri-verbal information, AKA
> "other information".

Your thesis statement is irrelevant, Lucien, given that the JDK
sentence involves the presence of what you like to call "peri-verbal
information".

> Note also the agreement between the two statements.

Note the irrelevance of your thesis to the present situation.

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

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: [e-mail]                 10-Nov-99 20:26:17
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Daniel Johnson" <[e-mail]>

Frank Kirk <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:9ddCdfeFk555-pn2-dctp5IWBdSZD@localhost...
> On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 13:48:07, "Daniel Johnson"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> >Those OSes were often well suited for some purpose or other, but not
> for the purpose Windows  is put to.
>
> What might that be?

You know, word processing, spreadsheets, that kind of thing.

Weak printer support is a Bad Thing for such tasks. It's
more important than Window's weak multitasking in that
application.



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: AT&T WorldNet Services (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         11-Nov-99 01:36:03
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

> (LOL!) Nope. Dave isn't inept at all, is he?

Marty's the "inept" one, being unable to distinguish the two simple
tests from the rest of the article.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         11-Nov-99 01:41:25
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass wrote:

> http://x44.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=543938657&CONTEXT=942246354.1439825998&
> hitnum=5
>
> Bass:   Like I said, I expect something more mature from a university
> Bass:   professor.
>
> Tholen: I'm not the one entertaining myself using USENET.  I'm not the
> Tholen: one accusing other people of being like Nomad.  I guess it's
> Tholen: okay for you, because you're not a university professor?

What does that have to do with your use of sarcasm in place of a logical
argument, Curtis?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         11-Nov-99 01:40:10
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

> I have often reflected on this myself; one can only hope that he's
> better at astronomy

Feel free to exmaine the published record, Curtis.

> than he is at . . . well . . . whatever the hell it is that he's doing
> here.

Countering misinformation, Curtis.  The fact of the matter is that OS/2
Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality, regardless of how much you,
Marty, or Timbol protest.

> And I cannot help but have sympathy for his students,

Why "sympathy", Curtis?  My evaluations are above average for one of
the top-rated programs in the country.

> especially those who have viewpoints (on *any* bloody thing
> you could care to name) that differ from his . . .

Classes aren't for students to present their viewpoints on astronomy,
Curtis.  Perhaps you should take one sometime to find out what it's
all about.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            10-Nov-99 21:16:11
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: Were is Warpzilla?

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] says...
>On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 21:37:25 -0500, David H. McCoy wrote:
>
>>Not to long ago, someone claimed that Warpzilla was ahead of every other
>>Mozilla port.
>>
>>While, according to AOL, Communicator 5.0 will beta next month. I guess at
the
>>point we'll see of Warpzilla truly is ahead of the pack or just another
dashed
>>hope.
>>--
>
>Since they depend on the Gecko work for the rendering engine, I don't see how
>they _could_ be ahead of all the others... unless you mean people porting
>Gecko to a native platform.

I agree, but someone from Odin claimed it was ahead. I didn't believe it then.

>Last I heard, Warpzilla had fallen a bit behind... they were having trouble
>getting Netscape to set them up with whatever method the porters use to
>officially submit code, and in the process they missed a release or two. They
>were planning to skip one and leapfrog ahead to the next... not sure how that
>went after that and I haven't checked in the last month and a half.

I don't know it if was behind, but I'm postive it wasn't ahead. It appears to
be all hype.

>Christopher B. Wright ([e-mail])
>"We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?"
>       - Edward Young
>
>
>

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            10-Nov-99 21:17:17
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: Were is Warpzilla?

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>: Not to long ago, someone claimed that Warpzilla was ahead of every other
>: Mozilla port.
>
>The oringal claim was made December 1, 1998, nearly a year ago.
>
>http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc2569.html
>
>-The Warpzilla team has released a new version, .002, of the OS/2 Mozilla
>-port. It has numerous new features and bug fixes including JavaScript,
>-CSS, and DOM. This release places the Warpzilla team ahead of all the
>-other development teams, including the Win32 team. It can be found at
>
>: While, according to AOL, Communicator 5.0 will beta next month. I
>: guess at the
>: point we'll see of Warpzilla truly is ahead of the pack or just
>: another dashed
>: hope.
>
>Maybe they will get it out when they finish it?  I've been seen quoting
>the above article, that they were ahead to people claiming Warpzilla was
>never going to go anyhere, which is clearly not the case.



>So many things have happen since then, that it is impossible to tell.
>
>-Jason
>

My thanks Jason. I forget the source of the post.

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            10-Nov-99 21:19:18
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1433590.html?tag=st.ne.ron.lthd.1003-200-
>: 1433590
>
>
>: So, we now have JavaBlend in Solaris and NT flavors? Isn't OS/2 the
premiere
>: platform?
>: And where Realplayer has released 7.0? What are the odds of a Win16
version?
>
>: Let the spin...begin!
>
>http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4406.html
>
>-RealNetworks announced today (Nov 8) that it will publish the source
>-code to Real.com Take5. See:

Take 5 is a small piece of RealPlayer and definitely not the piece that people

really want.

>Also in news:
>
>http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4404.html
>
>-So *please* do not yet start downloading Odin. We will announce it
>-officialy the next few days and the web page will be up to date too.
>
>-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 natively,
>-as if they were intended to be OS/2 applications in the first place.
>

How many programs can be run with Odin?

>Jason
>

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               10-Nov-99 21:16:29
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
> >David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1433590.html?tag=st.ne.ron.lthd.1003-200-
> >: 1433590
> >
> >
> >: So, we now have JavaBlend in Solaris and NT flavors? Isn't OS/2 the
premiere
> >: platform?
> >: And where Realplayer has released 7.0? What are the odds of a Win16
version?
> >
> >: Let the spin...begin!
> >
> >http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4406.html
> >
> >-RealNetworks announced today (Nov 8) that it will publish the source
> >-code to Real.com Take5. See:
>
> Take 5 is a small piece of RealPlayer and definitely not the piece that
people
> really want.

Agreed.  Whoever posted the news item on WarpCast didn't have any idea what
this product was all about.  It contains no Real content playing capabilities.

> >Also in news:
> >
> >http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4404.html
> >
> >-So *please* do not yet start downloading Odin. We will announce it
> >-officialy the next few days and the web page will be up to date too.
> >
> >-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 natively,
> >-as if they were intended to be OS/2 applications in the first place.
> >
>
> How many programs can be run with Odin?

Take a gander yourself.  Far from an exhaustive list, as these are just what
the webmaster of this unofficial page happened to try.

http://www.teamos2.org.pl/odin/

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                         11-Nov-99 02:04:10
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (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, what you have insisted is that *my* copy of JAVAINUF.EXE was
> "irrelevant" to the disproof of your erroneous claim that one had
> to run OS/2 in order to extract the contents of JAVAINUF.EXE.

Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Curtis?  What I
really insisted is that WinZip is not superior to InfoZip in its
ability to unzip a zip archive, Curtis.

> Based on a broken copy of JAVAINUF.EXE.

As I've told you several times now, Curtis, I had no knowledge of any
problem with my copy of javainuf.exe at the time that I posted the
error message from InfoZip.  Still suffering from reading comprehension
problems?

> Your failure to determine the integrity of your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE
> before using it as a basis for evidence is "inept," Dave.

Illogical, Curtis.  Do you determine the integrity of a light bulb
before you apply power to it?

> Based on a broken copy of JAVAINUF.EXE.

As I've told you several times now, Curtis, I had no knowledge of any
problem with my copy of javainuf.exe at the time that I posted the
error message from InfoZip.  Still suffering from reading comprehension
problems?

> Your failure to determine the integrity of your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE
> before using it as a basis for evidence is "inept," Dave.

Illogical, Curtis.  Do you determine the integrity of a light bulb
before you apply power to it?

> Nope. It has everything to do with your perceptions, but nothing to do
> with the facts.

On the contrary, the error message produced by InfoZip is a fact,
Curtis.  That Timbol has lied repeatedly in this newsgroup is also
a fact.  In other words, it does have to do with the facts.

> I said your *claim* was erroneous, not the error messages.

You said my conclusion was "inept", but it is not.

> "Sarcasm is another often-used tactic when a person lacks a logical
> argument." Dave Tholen, 11/10/1999

Non sequitur.

> I never claimed you "described" the output at all, Dave.

You called it "a bunch of error messages" for a reason, Curtis.  What
is that reason?

> "Sarcasm is another often-used tactic when a person lacks a logical
> argument." Dave Tholen, 11/10/1999

Non sequitur.

> You have been proving it over and over, Dave.

Yet another example of your pontification.

> No, I blame you for using your "burned out light bulb" in an attempt to
> refute someone else's truthful claim that they could get their light
> working using a different method.

Illogical, given that there was no evidence that the light bulb was
burned out, Curtis.  I see you also have the ability to stretch an
analogy beyond the point of applicability.

> Your failure to determine the integrity of your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE
> before using it as a basis for evidence is "inept," Dave.

Illogical, Curtis.  Do you determine the integrity of a light bulb
before you apply power to it?

> Assuming, for the sake of argument, that WinZip is in no way superior to
> InfoZip, how does that fail to disprove your claim that one has to run
> OS/2 in order to extract the contents of 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, Curtis?

> Based on a broken copy of JAVAINUF.EXE.

As I've told you several times now, Curtis, I had no knowledge of any
problem with my copy of javainuf.exe at the time that I posted the
error message from InfoZip.  Still suffering from reading comprehension
problems?

> Your failure to determine the integrity of your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE
> before using it as a basis for evidence is "inept," Dave.

Illogical, Curtis.  Do you determine the integrity of a light bulb
before you apply power to it?

> Based on a broken copy of JAVAINUF.EXE.

As I've told you several times now, Curtis, I had no knowledge of any
problem with my copy of javainuf.exe at the time that I posted the
error message from InfoZip.  Still suffering from reading comprehension
problems?

> Your failure to determine the integrity of your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE
> before using it as a basis for evidence is "inept," Dave.

Illogical, Curtis.  Do you determine the integrity of a light bulb
before you apply power to it?

> Yes, you said that you had "evidence that contradicted his claim," but
> the evidence was based on a broken copy of JAVAINUF.EXE.

As I've told you several times now, Curtis, I had no knowledge of any
problem with my copy of javainuf.exe at the time that I posted the
error message from InfoZip.  Still suffering from reading comprehension
problems?

> Your failure to determine the integrity of your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE
> before using it as a basis for evidence is "inept," Dave.

Illogical, Curtis.  Do you determine the integrity of a light bulb
before you apply power to it?

> Yes, you said that you had "evidence that contradicted his claim," but
> the evidence was based on a broken copy of JAVAINUF.EXE.

As I've told you several times now, Curtis, I had no knowledge of any
problem with my copy of javainuf.exe at the time that I posted the
error message from InfoZip.  Still suffering from reading comprehension
problems?

> Your failure to determine the integrity of your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE
> before using it as a basis for evidence is "inept," Dave.

Illogical, Curtis.  Do you determine the integrity of a light bulb
before you apply power to it?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               10-Nov-99 21:25:19
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Curtis Bass writes:
>
> > I have often reflected on this myself; one can only hope that he's
> > better at astronomy
>
> Feel free to exmaine the published record, Curtis.

We have "exmaine"'d Dave's published record right here on Usenet.  It seems
that Curtis' fears are correct.

> > than he is at . . . well . . . whatever the hell it is that he's doing
> > here.
>
> Countering misinformation, Curtis.  The fact of the matter is that OS/2
> Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality, regardless of how much you,
> Marty, or Timbol protest.

And regardless of how much Dave pontificates without knowing Java, how it
works, and how it is used, he is incorrect.  Too bad he'd rather call people
dishonest liars than learn a thing or two about Java and check out his "facts"
for himself.  Par for the course for our "scientist".

> > And I cannot help but have sympathy for his students,
>
> Why "sympathy", Curtis?  My evaluations are above average for one of
> the top-rated programs in the country.

Dave doesn't seem to realize that Hawaii is part of the US now.  His
unsubstantiated statistics obviously predate that fact.

> > especially those who have viewpoints (on *any* bloody thing
> > you could care to name) that differ from his . . .
>
> Classes aren't for students to present their viewpoints on astronomy,
> Curtis.  Perhaps you should take one sometime to find out what it's
> all about.

And perhaps the arch-hypocrite should learn some Java before telling us what
is
implemented and what is not.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               10-Nov-99 21:26:20
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty's the "inept" one, being unable to distinguish the two simple
> tests from the rest of the article.

> > Now, where is the alleged invective?
> > Now, where is the alleged invective?

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               10-Nov-99 19:26:09
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Definitive proof IBM can't sell even squirrel contraceptives anymore

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

If IBM's idea of advertising is to promote OS/2's logo (which was stolen
from that SAMS book, and not even the real logo!) on 50 TV monitor screens
simulaneously as part of the mad computer guy's main control room in the
movie "Goldeneye" (a James Bond movie made in 1995, I'll keep the comments
of the movie to a minimum), then IBM has severe problems when dealing with
consumer public!

They didn't even use any of the real OS/2 logos!  Not "Warp"'s, not the
retarded circley things, but a logo (which is even dumber) used directly
from a BOOK COVER while managing NOT to promote the book at the same time by
covering up the good words underneath 'Warp'!

That is lame!

and Microsoft is a monopoly for overpowering competitors and being
punished!?

That might be true for some things, but for God's sake you do not have four
competitors, watch three of them act like braindead turnips, and then punish
that fourth one for being "successful".  Not when that fourth one needs to
really do nothing to gain new users when one of those competitors widely
opened its door for them!

IBM opened the door to non-Microsoft people for writing an OS to their PC.
Those people said "NO".  That's because they're dumb.  Anyone who didn't
notice IBM's monopoly and name were either dumb or extremely moral and
ethical.  (monopolies tend to rely on unethical practices and in the
business world you have to go along with it or you'll be kicked out.  Sad
but true.)  Microsoft stepped through that door and by doing so saw the same
things that anyone else going through that door would have seen -
opportunity.  Like I've said, IBM at the time was in a position to sell used
toilet water as drinking water and people would buy it like mad.  Microsoft
saw this.  This is one of the few ethical business dealings ever made - one
company being so stupid they want someone else to come in and write for
their hardware.  Dumb dumb dumb.

I don't care about the quality of the product.  Marketing has blinded many
to poor quality (look at GM, AT&T, the IBM PC and compatibles - all of which
are monopolies or were at some point and/or very large institutions, what a
coincidence.)

So pardon me if I refuse to ever stop insulting IBM and hiding my scorn.
They are [big mass of censored words which are censored out of hatred for
those [censored] people who deserve every word because they knew the
business well enough to become a monopoly at one point and [censored] up big
time!

IBM is still at fault, IMHO, for the events taken place between 1980 and
1999 and beyond.  Period.  Understand that much and you'll be enlightened
that much more.

--
And remember:  Max is a Mighty Dog (tm) from Friskies.
***

Please do me the honor and visit:

http://www.geocities.com/~timanov/ispy/index.html


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     10-Nov-99 18:40:09
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: Definitive proof IBM can't sell even squirrel contraceptives anymor

From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>

Kelly Robinson wrote:
>
> If IBM's idea of advertising is to promote OS/2's logo (which was stolen
> from that SAMS book, and not even the real logo!) on 50 TV monitor screens
> simulaneously as part of the mad computer guy's main control room in the
> movie "Goldeneye" (a James Bond movie made in 1995, I'll keep the comments
> of the movie to a minimum), then IBM has severe problems when dealing with
> consumer public!

1995!?  An old James Bond Movie....still stuck in the past!

How about MS on the steps of the US Federal Court Building in 1999?  Now
that's a company that knows how to get the word out to the Consumer
Public.

"We're not crooks!"

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     10-Nov-99 18:39:26
  To: All                                               10-Nov-99 23:25:13
Subj: Re: Definitive proof IBM can't sell even squirrel contraceptives anymor

From: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>

Kelly Robinson wrote:
>
> If IBM's idea of advertising is to promote OS/2's logo (which was stolen
> from that SAMS book, and not even the real logo!) on 50 TV monitor screens
> simulaneously as part of the mad computer guy's main control room in the
> movie "Goldeneye" (a James Bond movie made in 1995, I'll keep the comments
> of the movie to a minimum), then IBM has severe problems when dealing with
> consumer public!

1995!?  An old James Bond Movie....still stuck in the past!

How about MS on the steps of the US Federal Court Building in 1999?  Now
that's a company that knows how to get the word out to the Consumer
Public.

"We're not crooks!"

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     10-Nov-99 18:49:26
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:24
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>

Drestin Black wrote:
>
> Joe Ragosta <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> > In article <znu-1011991606230001@192.168.0.2>, [e-mail] (ZnU)
> wrote:

> > > Please learn something about the legal system. There were no findings of
> > > fact in either of the earlier two cases. Findings of fact are generally
> > > not overturned. Whatever he decides to do to MS might get over turned,
> but
> > > the facts set down in the document released Friday will almost certainly
> > > be accepted as truth in all appeals.
> >
> > The interesting thing is that the way he laid out the Findings of Fact,
> > it's hard to imagine any grounds for overturning his eventual judgement.
> >
>
> You must learn to try harder. Not give up so easily.

Amen brother.  We just need to understand how to ammend the US
Constitution to allow a court of appeals to over turn the findings of
fact in a case.


> > If you accept the Findings of Fact (which the appeals court pretty much
> > has to do), the verdict is pretty self-evident.
>
> Gee, guess we can just skip the rest of the legal system eh?

No.  We just need to know that a case is appealed on the findings of
law, not on overturning the findings of fact.

We would NOT want to skip the leagal system - just encourage some
advocates to recognize Judge Jackson and only Judge Jackson was
entrusted to find fact.

He is no dummy. He knows the case will be appealed and so his finding of
law will be based on a mountain of fact favorable to the DOJ and States.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               10-Nov-99 22:05:06
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:24
Subj: (1/2) Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451493

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Dave exposed his hypocritical idiocy in many additional threads today, which
further demonstrates hypocrisy based on his attacks on me for responding to
his
(self-admitted) "baby-talk tripe" on the grounds that I am wasting bandwidth.
The only way he thinks he can save face is by ignoring my points and not
responding to them directly in his own "infantile game", but this does little
to cover up his blatant ineptitude and inability to address the issues I've
raised.  In fact, he's even been kind enough to collect several of these
issues
right here, so he can demonstrate in one convenient place how he ignores
relevant points, responding with unintelligible idiocy.  Perhaps he did it to
help me prove my points, or perhaps he's just that inept.  Either way, Tholen
loses (or that would be "displays", as this seems to be Dave's universal word
that can mean anything he wants it to).

Also note that 65 times in a previous posting Dave responded with the same
Eliza line in quotes with no attribution and a statement about his infantile
wrath.  Despite the fact that he considers this a response, just like the ones
he uses in his infantile game with Eric (aka Tholenbot), he seems unable to
tell that this response is an inappropriate non-response.  Par for the course
for our alleged "scientist".  He also ignored the fact that he was making a
complete buffoon out of himself whilst hypocritically wasting bandwidth,
playing infantile games, and posting baby-talk tripe.

Meanwhile, he still maintains that Java 1.2 functionality is implemented in
OS/2 Java 1.1.8, despite the overwhelming evidence against him.  In yet
another
attempt to save face, he has ignored all evidence to the contrary, as he has
admitted doing in the past, and reiterated his unsubstantiated erroneous
claims
with his generalized terms, without examining the JDK in question itself, or
knowing enough about the subject to be able to do so.  This is quite typical
of
Tholen and has come to be expected.

He even felt the need to reintroduce inappropriate analogies, which have
already been debunked, to demonstrate his "point" (which has also already been
debunked).  All this he does to avoid actually learning a thing or two about
Java and examining the real, hard evidence himself.  No surprise there.

Lastly, Dave seems to be having trouble distinguishing between invective and
descriptive phrases.  He even hypocritically accused others of invective and
insulted the same person in the same post!  Looks like he'll stop at nothing
to
twist things around to agree with his view of the world.

Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> Marty expanded to only three additional articles today, but that still
> demonstrates hypocrisy based on his stated intention to save bandwidth
> by not responding to what he perceives as my "baby-talk tripe".  The
> only way he could save face would be to admit that the articles of mine
> to which he responded are not "baby-talk tripe", but doing so would
> contradict his claim that I'm playing an "infantile game".  Either way,
> Marty loses (or that would be looses, to use Marty's "implementation").
>
> Also note that 65 times Marty claimed there was "no response", despite
> the fact that there was a response, just like the one he used against
> me.  He also ignored the fact that I had responded to his arguments
> many times previously.
>
> Meanwhile, he still maintains that there is no Java 1.2 functionality
> in OS/2 Java 1.1.8, despite the overwhelming evidence against him.  In
> yet another attempt to save face, he's had to redefine "implements" to
> ignore anything that doesn't conform to the standard or involves a
> different interface.  But that approach was already destroyed by using
> the analogy involving the rotary dial and touch tone telephones.  Or
> one could use the FORTRAN 77 extension that implemented the functionality
> of Fortran 90's derived types via structures.  The functionality is there
> though the interface is not the same, and it's definitely not standard in
> that the keyword is different (something that Fred Emmerich still hasn't
> discovered).
>
> Lastly, Marty seems to be having trouble distinguishing between two
> simple tests and the article in which they are contained.  Looks like
> he'll stop at nothing to twist things around to agree with his view
> of the world.
>
> 1> Well, unfortunately Dave hasn't stopped wasting bandwidth (or even
> 1> slowed down), having excreted his invective and illogic all over his
> 1> keyboard and passing on said excretion to the readers of COOA.  Of
> 1> course, by his response, he effectively admitted that his postings
> 1> are "baby-talk tripe", because he claimed that I was incorrect when
> 1> I said that I don't respond to such postings.  He has even tried that
> 1> tired old "I'm a programmer" line, but when asked to present evidence
> 1> he has failed to do so time and time again, and only serves to make
> 1> him look like a fool, as he has already demonstrated a high degree of
> 1> ignorance in the field.  Unfortunately, he doesn't confine his
> 1> ignorance to the field of software, either.  He also decided that I
> 1> not only have a wagon, but I've hitched it to Curtis Bass' alleged
> 1> horse, while again ignoring the incontrovertible evidence presented
> 1> to him.  No surprise there.  Why do you think he was twice elected
> 1> Kook of the Month?
>
> "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> One wonders who Dave perceives he is currently addressing and for
> 1> whose benefit is his infantile "digest" game.  It certainly doesn't
> 1> benefit him, as it further shows what a hypocritical buffoon he is.
> 1> I guess it's part of his infantile tantrum and "wrath" (denoted by
> 1> "I warned you about going down this path") because I embarassed him
> 1> so much.  Too bad his "wrath" is completely ineffective, as I would
> 1> assume any wrath emanating from him would be.
>
> "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> You have to ask yourself, is it because of Dave's sex life that he
> 1> is going through all of this?
>
> "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: 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> 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> Note: no response
>
> 1> Note: no response
>
> 1> Note: no response
>
> 1> Note: no response
>
> 1> Note: no response
>
> 2> And consistent with Tholen's hypocritical whining about removing
> 2> 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.
>
> 2> And speaking of dishonesty...
>
> "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> And how could he have known how much classes.zip was compressed, or
> 2> its CRC-32 if he read the file classes.zip?  Apparently Tholen is
> 2> completely ignorant of how WinZip works.  Timbol (or anyone else
> 2> capable of passing the third grade) can view the contents of a Zip
> 2> file within a Zip file without extracting anything, with a simple
> 2> double-click in WinZip.
>
> "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> And given that he referred to the compressed size of classes.zip,
> 2> he was clearly referring to JAVAINUF.EXE, which is the only place
> 2> in which such information is stored.  How embarassing that Tholen
> 2> doesn't understand this concept.
>
> "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> Obvious evidence of reading comprehension problems.
>
> "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 of reading comprehension problems (as if further
> 2> evidence were needed).  Perhaps if Dave hadn't hypocritically removed
> 2> the context from this statement he'd have a chance (albiet slim) of
> 2> comprehending it.
>
> "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> Sound to me like someone dishonestly destroyed context, Curtis.
>
> "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> Perhaps that's Tholen's idiotic contention, but by his own admittance,
> 2> this is just a mere diversion.  It seems he almost enjoys the taste of
> 2> his foot in his mouth.
>
> "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> "There is only one relevant point, namely that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
> 2> implements Java 1.2 functionality.  That's been firmly established
> 2> using quotations from IBM and the actual JDK.  Everything else has
> 2> been a diversion."
> 2> - Dave Tholen
>
> 2> "There is only one relevant point, namely that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
> 2> implements Java 1.2 functionality.  That's been firmly established
> 2> using quotations from IBM and the actual JDK.  Everything else has
> 2> been a diversion."
> 2> - Dave Tholen
>
> 2> "There is only one relevant point, namely that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
> 2> implements Java 1.2 functionality.  That's been firmly established
> 2> using quotations from IBM and the actual JDK.  Everything else has
> 2> been a diversion."
> 2> - Dave Tholen
>
> 2> Dave just ignored the significance of these references, not the
> 2> references themselves.
>
> "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> And where does one find the compression ratio of classes.zip?  Why,
> 2> in JAVAINUF.EXE, of course.
>
> "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> Take it from Dave:  he knows what it's like to be inept.  Though he
> 2> has demonstrated quite a bit of prowess at shoving his foot in his
> 2> mouth.
>
> "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> And didn't Dave recently write:
> 2> "There is only one relevant point, namely that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
> 2> implements Java 1.2 functionality.  That's been firmly established
> 2> using quotations from IBM and the actual JDK.  Everything else has
> 2> been a diversion."
> 2> - Dave Tholen
>
> 2> "There is only one relevant point, namely that OS/2 Java 1.1.8
> 2> implements Java 1.2 functionality.  That's been firmly established
> 2> using quotations from IBM and the actual JDK.  Everything else has
> 2> been a diversion."
> 2> - Dave Tholen
>
> 2> Dave answered his own question best:  "... Everything else has been
> 2> a diversion."
>
> "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> Illogic defines Dave; it doesn't refute him.
>
> "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> Why would Curtis know embarrassment?  None has been sent his way.
> 2> Dave is hoarding all of the embarrassment to himself.
>
> "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> Yup, Dave's diversions finally paid off in boring yet another person
> 2> with a different opinion than his into submission.  No one is
> 2> surprised by this dishonest, underhanded, and cowardly tactic.
>
> "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> No need.  It is obvious.
>
> "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 ironic, coming from someone who both hypocritically spews forth
> 2> his own "invective" and also lacks a logical argument (among other
> 2> things).
>
> "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> And Dave has it right on the top of his head.
>
> "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> And even more firmly debunked by examining the contents of the
> 3> actual JDK itself as delivered by IBM.
>
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
>

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               10-Nov-99 22:05:06
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:24
Subj: (2/2) Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451493

> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
>
> 3> Glad Tholen agrees that he was a major contributor in such a
> 3> diversion.
>
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
>
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.
>
> 4> Dave Tholen wrote:
>
> "Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"
>
> I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                 11-Nov-99 04:41:24
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:24
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >> >Curtis Bass wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> 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 text.
> >> >>
> >> >> Good for you, Dave.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Curtis Bass writes:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > Regardless of whose file it was based on, the claim was erroneous.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > How does that make your copy of the file relevant, Curtis?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > My copy proves the error of the claim.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > My claim wasn't based on your copy of the file, Curtis, thus your
copy
> >> >> > of the file is indeed irrelevant to my claim.
> >> >>
> >> >> Typical circular evasiveness on Dave's part.
> >> >>
> >> >> Are you listening, Karel?  Bennie?  Still astounded by Dave's, uh,
> >> >> "logic?"
>
> >>Bennie Nelson
> >> >Jeff Glatt is the one responsible for
> >> >the "noise" you're quoting here.
>
> >> You don't even know what the hell you're talking about. *Nothing* that
> >> Curtis is quoting above is from me.
>
> >Wrong.
>
> To quote your buddy Tholen "Bullshit".
>
> I say again. NO quotes of mine appeared in the message of Curtis'
> where you claimed that my quotes appear.
>
> The fact that you don't realize this reveals that you're not competent
> enough to read attribution lines.
>
> Are you, in fact, competent at anything, or are you demonstrating an
> unusual amount of incompetence here?
>
> NOTE: Tholen supporters tend to lack competence. Bennie shows that
> he's no exception.

Thank you, Jeff, for proving my point.  The above statement is one
more in a long list that you have made about me and others who do
not bow at the the anti-Tholen altar.  I am not for Tholen, and I
am not against him.  The fact that he and I can exchange posts
without resorting to personal attacks is apparently more than you
can stand.  So you attack me.

>
> >Mr. BASS swallowed your cast, hook-line-and-stinker. You are
> >the one who has repeatedly posted, in this thread and other threads,
> >the nonsense that Mr. BASS cited.
>
> Oh dear, now WHAT is it that your delusional mind has imagined Curtis
> to be swallowing?
>
> >I'd include references from DejaNews
>
> Except that there are obviously no quotes of mine appearing in Curtis'
> post in which you allege that he is quoting me.

Jeff, I've supplied so many urls to disprove points you've made.  You
have yet to supply one in any reply you've made to one of my posts.

By the way, let me define the words "quote" and "cite" as I have
used them:  Mr. Bass clearly has read your posts and been suckered
by your repetitious railings against anyone who can exchange posts
with Dave Tholen without attacking him.  In this thread, the two you
have mentioned are Karel and myself.  No one else has done that until
Mr. Bass did it in the post I replied to.  Ergo, he got the idea from
you.

>
> >but that doesn't make any difference to you.
>
> That's true. It does not make any difference to me that your
> delusional mind thinks that such DejaNews references exist.
>
> >Whenever I've used urls to debunk your posts,
>
> Hahahahah! You're really are amusing! That would be the URL you quoted
> concerning some IBM employee which you've used as "proof" to document
> your misguided views about Win32 software requiring VxD's to run?

Wrong, Jeff.  I supplied urls for:

1) Bill Gates quotes
2) Steve Ballmer's quotes
3) Testimony in the MS v DOJ case
4) Articles about Windows 9x and NT
5) URLs for Deja news that proved I posted beginning in early 1995 in
comp.os.os* newsgroups with the same two user IDs I have now.

>
> Lately, your posts are so confused and misguided that, beyond merely
> underscoring how little sense you make and how little you know, they
> "debunk" absolutely nothing.

You are clearly the one who is confused.

>
> >you simply stop responding to the thread and wait for another one
> >to spout your redundant diatribes.
>
> >So, to keep this one alive for a while longer, I won't include
> >relevant urls.
>
> Yeah, riiiiiiiiiiight. Tell your doctor that your current medication
> is having some notable, negative side effects.

I could easily supply urls for this thread for posts you made that
have attacks on me.  If you do not remember posting them, that's not
my problem.

>
> >> Get a clue. You're obviously no more "competent" than your buddy
> >>Tholen, and are prone to make wild, totally WRONG assumptions about
> >>who said what.
>
> >Ah, competence.  Good thing you brought that up.  How about these
> >for competence, Jeff?
>
> Your lies hardly demonstrate competence. In fact, the witless manner
> in which you lie, especially about having dismissed Tholen's
> destractors as "emotionally blocked" people who "aren't skilled at
> logic" reveals you to be a dishonest person whose opinions do not
> deserve to be given merit.
>
> [Much misguided nonsense and lies from Bennie Nelson deleted. Although

Wrong, Jeff.  You deleted the truth.  Ah, how easily one can wipe away
that which does not meet with one's view of the world.  I have answered
your posts with documentation.

So, I'll supply what you deleted:

1) You've stated that you think I'm BobO; I'm not;
2) You've stated that you think I've only been posting in comp.os.os2*
only since BobO quit a few months ago; I've been posting in these
newsgroups for nearly five years;
3) You've stated that you think I'm not a programmer; I am;
4) You've stated that you think I don't know the modes supported by
an MPU401 midi card; I know what they are;
5) You've stated that you think MS hasn't promised to merge Win 9x
and NT into one code base; Bill Gates and Steve Ballmer et al disagree
with you;
6) You've stated that you think MS is innocent of the charges; Judge
Jackson disagrees with you;
7) You've stated that you think I agree with anything and everything
Dave Tholen posts; I do not agree with Dave Tholen on everything he
has posted;

As I said, I supplied urls to back up every one of the above claims
where applicable.  You've supplied not one.

> Bennie may not be very clever, I'm too smart to fall for his pathetic,
> I'm-pretending-to-be-Tholen vaudeville routine and hand-waving
> distractions. The fact that he actually thinks Tholen is "skilled at
> logic" reveals just how plodding Bennie's powers of "perception" truly
> are].
>
> >Since these three have made so many posts on the subject, I thought
> >one more from each would not be asking for much.
>
> What makes you think that your inability to follow the thread and
> understand them so far is suddenly going to disappear if they simply
> post yet another reiteration of their points? To quote your buddy
> Tholen, "That's illogical".
>
> >The three summaries could then be compared.
>
> Um, they HAVE been comparing what they're saying all along, in arguing
> their respective positions.
>
> It's just that you seem unable to keep up intellectually. You appear
> to need them to repeat what they've said, over and over and over (not
> that most of them haven't done exactly that ALREADY in trying to get
> points through Tholen's exceedingly thick skull) before you can even
> begin to figure out what they're saying.

I've explained this one, Jeff.  Go read my explanation, again.
Since you deleted it, I'll insert it from my original post.


You've really missed the point of my request.

Since these three have made so many posts on the subject, I thought
one more from each would not be asking for much.  The three summaries
could then be compared.  In case you have not noticed, I have posited in
this thread the idea that there are conflicts of communication due
to variations of usage of the English language.

Language variations are an impediment to communication.

It is my opinion that, concerning this topic, the differences of opinion
between these three are less significant than the agreements between
these three.  In other words, they agree more than they disagree.  They
may not agree with me concerning that statement, but they have ego
invested in the thread; I do not.  Personality differences, on the other
hand, are much more significant in this discussion than the concepts.
That is why I requested individual summaries of the ideas without
reference to personalities.


>
> Ok, it isn't nice, but it needs to be said. Bennie, you're *slow*.
> (And I don't mean just in terms of time).
>
> >I have posited in
> >this thread the idea that there are conflicts of communication due
> >to variations of usage of the English language.
>
> So? You say LOTS of things that are irrelevant.
>
> >Language variations are an impediment to communication.
>
> Well, I don't think that you'll ever figure this one out (because
> you're *slow*), but the real and only "impediment" to communication is
> that Tholen is a moronic asshole who deliberately spews nonsense and
> chooses to utter ridiculously stupid rhetoric that results in no
> meaningful "communication" whatsoever, simply because his only intent
> is to harrass those people expressing opinions that this renowned kook
> and mentally insane dimwit doesn't want to hear about his pet product.
>
> >It is my opinion that
>
> I've heard enough of your opinions to realize that they make little
> sense and have few insights that are relevant to anything that gets
> posted here.
>
> This one that you're blathering now is just another example.
>
> I won't waste my time with it.
>
> >I note here that only Dave Tholen has taken the time to respond to the
> >request.
>
> Nonsense. He merely spouted more of the same, idiotic, meaningless
> rhetoric that pompous, slow, OS/2 Zealots like you actually think
> sounds good.

Mr. Bass has replied with his effort.  Marty has declined.

Bennie Nelson

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          11-Nov-99 05:29:19
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:24
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Mark Robinson <[e-mail]>

>

<snip>

>
> >
> > Are you trying to claim that Mac OS and BeOS are harder to learn than
> Windows?
> >
>
> In a word YES.

How so?

>
> <snip>
>
>
> Tunnel vision eh?  Set the way back machine to the mid eighties and see what
> choice you had then, before MS by liberally licensing DOS to any
> manufacturer.  Your choice was IBM, IBM DOS and CGA.  Enjoy.

There were other OSs(Unix, ITS, TOPS...)

>
>
> > > > Explain.  I don't see Apple integrating their own, or even any,
> > > > browser with the Mac OS.  I don't see that in Gnome either, which I
> > > > have used.  I haven't used KDE, so I can't comment.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It will happen because it is a good idea.
> >
> > Except that is isn't. People have been editing text since the beginning,
> > yet you don't see an OS with an "integrated" text editor.
> >
>
> Yes you do, Edit and Notepad are integral to NT, DOS had Edlin and internal.
> Try Again.

So your saying that with out edit and notepad NT won't boot?  If can still
boot
without they are not integrated merely included.

>
>
> > > > And besides, even if you still believe that that is the case, then
> > > > how do you explain Microsoft's conduct towards Netscape, where they
> > > > discouraged developers to write their applications using the APIs
> > > > that Netscape exposed?  Are you saying that Microsoft is bucking the
> > > > trend that they created?  The simplest explanation, and the one that
> > > > the judge decided is correct, is that the only reason they (cough)
> > > > "integrated" IE with Windows was to, as Alchin (a senior executive
> > > > in Microsoft) put it:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Netscape develped a crap application, and lost marketshare because of
> it. No
> > > other reason.
> >
> > I can't even go on. This entire post demonstrates the effects of a power
> > far greater than Apple's Reality Distortion Field.  I feel very sorry for
> > Mr. Mulligan, for he has been utterly consumed by Microsoft√s Reality
> > Obliteration Field.
> >
>
> Cant refute anymore so resort to personal attacks.  I guess your reality
> only allows narrow views, too much time on 7 inch monitors doesn't leave
> scope for much else.

You're living in a dream world.

>
>
> > --
> > 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.
>
> --
> Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry
> >            --IBM maintenance manual, 1925
> >
> > ZnU <[e-mail]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>

    Mark


--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: @Home Network Canada (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          11-Nov-99 05:24:27
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:24
Subj: Re: MicroSoft a Monopoly?!?!

From: [e-mail] (Buddy Donnelly)

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 06:17:45, "Doug Darrow" <[e-mail]> a ┌crit
dans un message:

> On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 00:57:34 -0500, Bob Germer wrote:
>
> >As much as I would like to say he was expelled, he wasn't. He is
> >officially carried on Harvard's records as on leave of absence in good
> >standing.
> >
> >Of course, Harvard may just be hoping he will drop some money on it.
>
> It was only Papa's money (and political influence) that kept him on
> their books 'in good standing.'

And it was very ironic that he (and his wife, his "better" half for real?)
donated big bucks this year to the United Negro College Fund. Their motto?
"A Mind Is A Terrible Thing To Waste."

Even the worst of us can serve as somebody else's Bad Example.


--

Good luck,

Buddy

Buddy Donnelly
[e-mail]


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

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

From: [e-mail]                          11-Nov-99 05:45:03
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:24
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>Marty
>Most people feel (rightfully so) that if they have no
>knowledge of something that they aren't qualified to discuss it.  This never
>stopped Dave, however.

That's par for the course with Tholen

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          11-Nov-99 06:00:07
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:24
Subj: Re: "All bets are off regarding Windows" - IBM

From: [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt)

>>Jeff Glatt
>> Absolutely. 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.

>Brad BARCLAY
>if you check the latest published numbers, IBM's big-iron
>business has actually faced a decline this year

Which is why IBM is even more intent upon getting rid of PCs. IBM
loses LOTS of money whenever people stop buying those expensive
proprietary mainframes. Making everyone use a dumb terminal would
definitely increase the demand for those expensive IBM products.

>and the division that has been it's "bread and butter" has been the
>Software division.

No, IBM is *not* a primarily software company. In fact, the bulk of
IBM's revenue does not come from software sales.

Do you *really* work for IBM, or are you just pretending?

>in accuracy and truth over being able to spread FUD (you know, like you
>not knowing what an API is).

In fact, even someone who taught computer science chimed in to point
out that you calling MFC and the standard C library "an API" was
"absurd".

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

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

From: [e-mail]                      10-Nov-99 21:50:03
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:24
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Mark Robinson <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> >
>
> <snip>
>
> >
> > >
> > > Are you trying to claim that Mac OS and BeOS are harder to learn than
> > Windows?
> > >
> >
> > In a word YES.
>
> How so?
>

This is a subjective opinion based on more than 10 years teaching computer
use. It is based on what is necessary for the user to learn to begin being
useful and how much about computing the user will learn in the long term.
Windows while not being the quickest for startup will encourage the users to
learn more about computing in general than the Mac.  BeOS being Unix base
cannot make such a claim.

> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >
> > Tunnel vision eh?  Set the way back machine to the mid eighties and see
what
> > choice you had then, before MS by liberally licensing DOS to any
> > manufacturer.  Your choice was IBM, IBM DOS and CGA.  Enjoy.
>
> There were other OSs(Unix, ITS, TOPS...)

If one wanted to spend many times the budget, the conversation here was
personal computers.

>
> >
> >
> > > > > Explain.  I don't see Apple integrating their own, or even any,
> > > > > browser with the Mac OS.  I don't see that in Gnome either, which
I
> > > > > have used.  I haven't used KDE, so I can't comment.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It will happen because it is a good idea.
> > >
> > > Except that is isn't. People have been editing text since the
beginning,
> > > yet you don't see an OS with an "integrated" text editor.
> > >
> >
> > Yes you do, Edit and Notepad are integral to NT, DOS had Edlin and
internal.
> > Try Again.
>
> So your saying that with out edit and notepad NT won't boot?  If can still
boot
> without they are not integrated merely included.
>

Half rabbitting again.

> >
> >
> > > > > And besides, even if you still believe that that is the case, then
> > > > > how do you explain Microsoft's conduct towards Netscape, where
they
> > > > > discouraged developers to write their applications using the APIs
> > > > > that Netscape exposed?  Are you saying that Microsoft is bucking
the
> > > > > trend that they created?  The simplest explanation, and the one
that
> > > > > the judge decided is correct, is that the only reason they (cough)
> > > > > "integrated" IE with Windows was to, as Alchin (a senior executive
> > > > > in Microsoft) put it:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Netscape develped a crap application, and lost marketshare because
of
> > it. No
> > > > other reason.
> > >
> > > I can't even go on. This entire post demonstrates the effects of a
power
> > > far greater than Apple's Reality Distortion Field.  I feel very sorry
for
> > > Mr. Mulligan, for he has been utterly consumed by Microsoft╣s Reality
> > > Obliteration Field.
> > >
> >
> > Cant refute anymore so resort to personal attacks.  I guess your reality
> > only allows narrow views, too much time on 7 inch monitors doesn't leave
> > scope for much else.
>
> You're living in a dream world.
>

Am I?

> >
> >
> > > --
> > > 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.
> >
> > --
> > Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry
> > >            --IBM maintenance manual, 1925
> > >
> > > ZnU <[e-mail]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>
>
>     Mark
>
>


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


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

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

From: [e-mail]                         11-Nov-99 04:37:17
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:24
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451494

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Once again, Marty demonstrated his hypocrisy by wasting more bandwidth
responding to articles that he claimed he would not respond to.  Of
more interest, however, is his lack of a summary, as requested by
Bennie Nelson.  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.  What a cop out!  Meanwhile, he still hasn't figured
out the difference between two simple tests and the text of the article
that contained them.  He's also resorting to more lies, claiming that
I've admitted to all evidence to the contrary.  Amazing how USENET can
corrupt someone like that.  Here's today's digest of his six postings:

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?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

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?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

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?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

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?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

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?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

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?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

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?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

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?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

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?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

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?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

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?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

5> Dave Tholen wrote:

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

6> Consistent with Tholen's infantile game and hypocrisy:

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

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?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

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?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

6> [remaining hypocritical repetitious waste of bandwidth snipped]

"Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all of this?"

I warned you about going down that path, Marty.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 01:07:19
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:24
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
> >"David H. McCoy" wrote:
> >>
> >> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
> >> >David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> >:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1433590.html?tag=st.ne.ron.lthd.1003-200-
> >> >: 1433590
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >: So, we now have JavaBlend in Solaris and NT flavors? Isn't OS/2 the
premiere
> >> >: platform?
> >> >: And where Realplayer has released 7.0? What are the odds of a Win16
version?
> >> >
> >> >: Let the spin...begin!
> >> >
> >> >http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4406.html
> >> >
> >> >-RealNetworks announced today (Nov 8) that it will publish the source
> >> >-code to Real.com Take5. See:
> >>
> >> Take 5 is a small piece of RealPlayer and definitely not the piece that
people
> >> really want.
> >
> >Agreed.  Whoever posted the news item on WarpCast didn't have any idea what
> >this product was all about.  It contains no Real content playing
capabilities.
> >
> >> >Also in news:
> >> >
> >> >http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4404.html
> >> >
> >> >-So *please* do not yet start downloading Odin. We will announce it
> >> >-officialy the next few days and the web page will be up to date too.
> >> >
> >> >-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 natively,
> >> >-as if they were intended to be OS/2 applications in the first place.
> >> >
> >>
> >> How many programs can be run with Odin?
> >
> >Take a gander yourself.  Far from an exhaustive list, as these are just
what
> >the webmaster of this unofficial page happened to try.
> >
> >http://www.teamos2.org.pl/odin/
> >
> >- Marty
>
> This is pretty much the same stuff that I heard about a year ago. As for Sin
> and Half-life, don't hold your(generic OS/2 user) breath.
>
> This doesn't look good at all. I mean, Regedit, minesweeper, and an real old
> copy of Winamp isn't very compelling.

Actually the most significant newly supported app is probably WinHlp32.  Once
it becomes stable, it will assist the Odin developers immensely because
they'll
be able to view the MS API documentation from within OS/2 easily.  These are
not, in point of fact, the same apps that were supported a year ago.  There
are
many more, and many more work better than they would have a year ago.  There's
certainly nothing to write home about because you can run Notepad, I agree,
but
to sum up that no progress has been made in about a year is an irresponsible
statement.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                   11-Nov-99 04:45:18
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:24
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (ZnU)

In article <80cu5u$dl1$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Peter Ammon <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...

[snip]

> > The one that's mentioned 68 times in the Findings of Facts.  Maybe
> > you should read that?
> >
> > http://usvms.gpo.gov/findfact.html
> >
>
> Have read, nice legal fanatsy. What barriers, in reality, not legal fantasy?

You call the report by an unbiased US federal judge who has read thousands
of pages, heard months of testimony, and listened to arguments from first
rate lawyers on both sides "legal fantasy"? I'd be interested to know what
qualifications you have that allow you to just dismiss his findings.
Perhaps you are a sitting or retired US Supreme Court justice?

The barriers are just as they are set down in the findings of fact. If you
disagree, please quote specific passages from the findings of fact and
explain why you believe they are "legal fantasy".

> > 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.

Are you trying to claim that Mac OS and BeOS are harder to learn than Windows?

> > Nobody is punishing Microsoft because they control the desktop
> > market.  They are being punished because they use that control to
> > restrict innovation in other companies that might jeopardize that
> > monopoly.  Although I dispute the fact that Windows is the best
> > choice for 95% of users, whether it is or not is not relevant to the
> > case.  What IS relevant is how Microsoft ensures that Windows
> > REMAINS the best choice, by stomping down all other possibilities.
> > See the bit about Netscape and Java in the Findings of Fact, for examples.
> >
>
> That is yet to be proven.

LOL! Just what do you think findings of fact _are_?! That document details
things that have been _proven_ to the satisfaction of a US federal judge
with years of experience. I suspect you would agree with the man if you
had heard all the evidence!

> > The judge decided, after the long drawn out trial and hearing both
> > sides, that:
> >
> > "Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling
> > innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that
> > exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft."
> >
> > What kind of proof are you looking for, exactly?
> >
>
> The corrolation of these facts, shakey as they are, with the Law.

How are they shaky? As for the correlation with the law, some of the MS
actions that document details are clearly illegal.

> > So you think that we are doomed to have a single computer company
> > breaking the metaphorical kneecaps of all who dare oppose it?  I
> > hope I never get to that level of sheepdom.
> >
>
> Nope, IBM was shaken out of that mode my Microsoft, giving us all choice.

Giving use choice? The choice of Windows and more Windows?

> > Explain.  I don't see Apple integrating their own, or even any,
> > browser with the Mac OS.  I don't see that in Gnome either, which I
> > have used.  I haven't used KDE, so I can't comment.
> >
>
> It will happen because it is a good idea.

Except that is isn't. People have been editing text since the beginning,
yet you don't see an OS with an "integrated" text editor.

> > And besides, even if you still believe that that is the case, then
> > how do you explain Microsoft's conduct towards Netscape, where they
> > discouraged developers to write their applications using the APIs
> > that Netscape exposed?  Are you saying that Microsoft is bucking the
> > trend that they created?  The simplest explanation, and the one that
> > the judge decided is correct, is that the only reason they (cough)
> > "integrated" IE with Windows was to, as Alchin (a senior executive
> > in Microsoft) put it:
> >
>
> Netscape develped a crap application, and lost marketshare because of it. No
> other reason.

I can't even go on. This entire post demonstrates the effects of a power
far greater than Apple's Reality Distortion Field.  I feel very sorry for
Mr. Mulligan, for he has been utterly consumed by Microsoft╣s Reality
Obliteration Field.

--
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 <[e-mail]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 01:11:17
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:24
Subj: Re: "All bets are off regarding Windows" - IBM

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >and the division that has been it's "bread and butter" has been the
> >Software division.
>
> No, IBM is *not* a primarily software company. In fact, the bulk of
> IBM's revenue does not come from software sales.

I can vouch for this too.  According to the statistics that were given during
my IBM "orientation", services were the #1 revenue winner, with hardware
taking
the #2 spot.  Software was a distant #3.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                 11-Nov-99 04:52:27
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:24
Subj: Re: The Words of the Judge

From: Bennie Nelson <[e-mail]>

Jeff,

You need to slow down, take a deep breath or two, and think, Man.

In this thread, I have disagreed with the way you made a point, and
defended you and your programming efforts.  I have agreed with you
that all too many OS/2 developers got stepped on by the IBM elephant.
I have agreed that IBM sent signals and made promises to OS/2
developers and later reneged on them.  I gave a couple of examples
dealing with IBM's promise to make OS/2 a premier gaming platform
and how IBM reneged on that promise.

I have agreed with you for the bulk of this thread, and you keep
replying as if I have been disagreeing.  I have repeatedly told
you this.  I am telling you, again.

Many OS/2 developers were badly treated.  I know that and I
understand why many of them would not want to repeat the
experience or have anything else to do with OS/2 or IBM.

Regards,
Bennie Nelson

Jeff Glatt wrote:
>
> >>>>>Bennie Nelson
> >>>>>I notice that Jeff felt that he should remove the compliment
> >>>>>I gave to him in my first post in this thread.
>
> >>>>Jeff Glatt
> >>>>I removed it because it was irrelevant to the discussion. Furthermore,
> >>>>I didn't come into the newsgroup fishing for compliments. That's not
> >>>>what the newsgroup is about.
>
> >> >> I'll leave the self-promotion to people like Tholen.
>
> >> >But posting derogatory remarks about someone else is quite acceptable
> >> >to you?
>
> >> To quote your buddy Tholen "Reading comprehension problems, Bennie?" I
> >> said that your compliments were irrelevant to the discussion.
>
> >Jeff, a negative statement was made about your programming efforts.
>
> Duh, I know. So? It was made by someone whose opinion doesn't matter.
> And it's completely irrelevant to the topic of why OS/2 developers
> abandoned OS/2.
>
> How many times do people have to keep repeating and explaining the
> same things, over and over, to you???
>
> >To
> >rebut that statement, a positive statement about your programming efforts
> >is required.
>
> I already explained why your rebuttal wasn't needed.
>
> >That positive statement (i.e., compliment) is relevant to
> >the discussion which is based primarily upon your experience as an OS/2
> >developer.
>
> No, the discussion is *NOT* "based primarily upon [my] experience as
> an OS/2 developer". The discussion is about why OS/2 developers
> stopped supporting OS/2, and why the judge's assumptions about why
> they stopped supporting OS/2 are incorrect.
>
> >Positive statements about your programming work are relevant, because
> >they help lend credence to your statements concerning your experience
> >during the time frame when you were doing the programs.
>
> It's not *my* experience I'm talking about. It's the experience of
> LOTS of OS/2 developers, such as the people who worked on ColorWorks
> and Describe, and Brad Wardell, and others.
>
> >I don't believe the Judge's reasoning is contrived or flawed.
>
> Who cares what you think about why OS/2 developers stopped supporting
> OS/2? Your beliefs don't even resemble the opinions of ex-OS/2
> developers concerning why they left OS/2 and IBM.
>
> >The Judge accepts this second perspective.
>
> And neither does his perspective. Maybe if he had actually heard from
> some ex-OS/2 developers instead of (literally) sleeping through the
> trail, he'd know something about them.
>
> >The derogatory remarks were meant to debunk your remarks concerning
> >your experience.  I.e., your programming work is worthless==your points
> >concerning your programming experience are worthless.
>
> Who cares? Those remarks were uttered by a clueless fool (who BTW has
> since disappeared).
>
> We've gone well beyond that. Do try to keep up, Bennie.
>
> >> >> >If I state that my experience with OS/2 has been very good and that
> >> >> >ALL PC users should therefore use OS/2, you would reject that point.
>
> >> >> No, *you* miss the point. I'm telling you that "my experience" as a
> >> >> developer who had to deal with IBM, and the conclusions that I've
> >> >> drawn from that about OS/2 and IBM, are *not* exclusive to me. In
> >> >> fact, they are very prevalent views among ex-OS/2 developers.
>
> >> >I'm not telling you what you should be thinking.  You also should not
> >> >expect us to believe that your experience is indicative of what all
> >> >former OS/2 developers experienced, either.
>
> >> I don't expect you to merely believe it. I expect you to go out there
> >> and actually talk to ex-OS/2 developers about IBM and OS/2, and learn
> >> what they think. Start with Brad Wardell's history of OS/2. You'll
> >> find plenty of evidence of IBM killing OS/2 and OS/2 developers there.
>
> >> That's what I did. I've been talking with, and listening to, other
> >> OS/2 developers for years. That's how I know that very few of them
> >> think highly of IBM.
>
> >I don't blame them, either.
>
> And yet you appear to be completely unaware that this is what so many
> of them think, and even have the nerve to argue with anyone who points
> out that this is what they think. Typical.
>
> >I believe much damage was caused in the
> >industry by IBM's decisions vis-a-vis OS/2 support and the OS/2
> >developers.  IBM has some responsibility for that, but so does MS.
>
> How can MS be responsible for the way IBM chose to deal with OS/2
> developers???
>
> >In this case, indirectly means influencing IBM to renege on its
> >committments to OS/2 developers.
>
> Oh this is rich. What specific "commitments to OS/2 developers" did
> Microsoft force IBM to renege upon?
>
> >> >And according to Judge Jackson, MS's actions and decisions forced
> >> >IBM into making decisions and taking actions that contributed to
> >> >financial hardships for OS/2 developers.
>
> >> But the real truth is that OS/2 developers figured out a long time ago
> >> that IBM was only paying cheap lip service to OS/2. And IBM certainly
> >> didn't care about any other entity except IBM, and IBM decisions
> >> reflected that -- business as usual for IBM.
>
> >I'll disagree here.  I believe a significant number of IBMers were
> >committed to supporting OS/2.
>
> Frankly, there were more IBM employees who wanted it dead than there
> were ones who were "committed" to it (plus the fact that the ones who
> were "committed" to it --- as opposed to paying cheap lip service to
> it --- tended to be low-level, powerless IBM employees who really
> couldn't do much to circumvent IBM execs from giving OS/2 the axe).
>
> >> >> I never said anything about MMOS2 either. Maybe the problem is that
> >> >> you're not sure who is saying what in this thread? In that case, you
> >> >> should reserve your judgments about who is "wrong" until such time as
> >> >> you verify who has said what.
> >>
> >> >See above.
> >>
> >> Your posts are getting more and more schizophrenic and confusing as
> >> you go on. You seem to be disproving your own points, and then
> >> reiterating those disproven points.
> >>
> >> At this point, I'm not sure what you're trying to say or prove, if
> >> anything.
> >
> >I'd intended the Joystick and MMOS2 examples to be supportive of YOUR
> >points about IBM's abandonment of promises made to OS/2 developers.
> >IBM made promises concerning those areas of the OS and reneged on the
> >promises.
>
> Again, I repeat. Your posts are getting more and more schizophrenic
> and confusing as you go on. You seem to be disproving your own points,
> and then reiterating those disproven points.
>
> At this point, I'm not sure what you're trying to say or prove, if
> anything.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                      10-Nov-99 20:54:06
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:24
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:znu-1011992341530001@192.168.0.2...
> In article <80cu5u$dl1$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>

This will be fun.

<trimmed>
> > >
> >
> > Have read, nice legal fanatsy. What barriers, in reality, not legal
fantasy?
>
> You call the report by an unbiased US federal judge who has read thousands
> of pages, heard months of testimony, and listened to arguments from first
> rate lawyers on both sides "legal fantasy"? I'd be interested to know what
> qualifications you have that allow you to just dismiss his findings.
> Perhaps you are a sitting or retired US Supreme Court justice?
>

Unbiased judge, hmmm, heard months of testimony, in his sleep.  Who cut and
pasted complainants documents into his findings.  Whos findings are based on
subjective opinion.  My qualifications to dismiss his findings, a citizen of
the US is not prohibited from having an opinion on any subject, including
judges.

> The barriers are just as they are set down in the findings of fact. If you
> disagree, please quote specific passages from the findings of fact and
> explain why you believe they are "legal fantasy".
>

I have already done this exercise an have yet to see any proof that these
allegations occured.

> > > 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.
>
> Are you trying to claim that Mac OS and BeOS are harder to learn than
Windows?
>

In a word YES.

> > > Nobody is punishing Microsoft because they control the desktop
> > > market.  They are being punished because they use that control to
> > > restrict innovation in other companies that might jeopardize that
> > > monopoly.  Although I dispute the fact that Windows is the best
> > > choice for 95% of users, whether it is or not is not relevant to the
> > > case.  What IS relevant is how Microsoft ensures that Windows
> > > REMAINS the best choice, by stomping down all other possibilities.
> > > See the bit about Netscape and Java in the Findings of Fact, for
examples.
> > >
> >
> > That is yet to be proven.
>
> LOL! Just what do you think findings of fact _are_?! That document details
> things that have been _proven_ to the satisfaction of a US federal judge
> with years of experience. I suspect you would agree with the man if you
> had heard all the evidence!
>

Just what do you think findings of fact are?

> > > The judge decided, after the long drawn out trial and hearing both
> > > sides, that:
> > >
> > > "Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling
> > > innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that
> > > exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft."
> > >
> > > What kind of proof are you looking for, exactly?
> > >
> >
> > The corrolation of these facts, shakey as they are, with the Law.
>
> How are they shaky? As for the correlation with the law, some of the MS
> actions that document details are clearly illegal.
>

As stated above, some of these "facts" are based on subjective opinion.  The
supposition that they are illegal has yet to be found, even by this judge.

> > > So you think that we are doomed to have a single computer company
> > > breaking the metaphorical kneecaps of all who dare oppose it?  I
> > > hope I never get to that level of sheepdom.
> > >
> >
> > Nope, IBM was shaken out of that mode my Microsoft, giving us all
choice.
>
> Giving use choice? The choice of Windows and more Windows?
>

Tunnel vision eh?  Set the way back machine to the mid eighties and see what
choice you had then, before MS by liberally licensing DOS to any
manufacturer.  Your choice was IBM, IBM DOS and CGA.  Enjoy.

> > > Explain.  I don't see Apple integrating their own, or even any,
> > > browser with the Mac OS.  I don't see that in Gnome either, which I
> > > have used.  I haven't used KDE, so I can't comment.
> > >
> >
> > It will happen because it is a good idea.
>
> Except that is isn't. People have been editing text since the beginning,
> yet you don't see an OS with an "integrated" text editor.
>

Yes you do, Edit and Notepad are integral to NT, DOS had Edlin and internal.
Try Again.

> > > And besides, even if you still believe that that is the case, then
> > > how do you explain Microsoft's conduct towards Netscape, where they
> > > discouraged developers to write their applications using the APIs
> > > that Netscape exposed?  Are you saying that Microsoft is bucking the
> > > trend that they created?  The simplest explanation, and the one that
> > > the judge decided is correct, is that the only reason they (cough)
> > > "integrated" IE with Windows was to, as Alchin (a senior executive
> > > in Microsoft) put it:
> > >
> >
> > Netscape develped a crap application, and lost marketshare because of
it. No
> > other reason.
>
> I can't even go on. This entire post demonstrates the effects of a power
> far greater than Apple's Reality Distortion Field.  I feel very sorry for
> Mr. Mulligan, for he has been utterly consumed by Microsoft╣s Reality
> Obliteration Field.
>

Cant refute anymore so resort to personal attacks.  I guess your reality
only allows narrow views, too much time on 7 inch monitors doesn't leave
scope for much else.

> --
> 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.


--
Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry
>            --IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>
> ZnU <[e-mail]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>


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

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

From: [e-mail]                            11-Nov-99 00:15:17
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:24
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>>
>> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>> >David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> >:
http://news.cnet.com/news/0-1003-200-1433590.html?tag=st.ne.ron.lthd.1003-200-
>> >: 1433590
>> >
>> >
>> >: So, we now have JavaBlend in Solaris and NT flavors? Isn't OS/2 the
premiere
>> >: platform?
>> >: And where Realplayer has released 7.0? What are the odds of a Win16
version?
>> >
>> >: Let the spin...begin!
>> >
>> >http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4406.html
>> >
>> >-RealNetworks announced today (Nov 8) that it will publish the source
>> >-code to Real.com Take5. See:
>>
>> Take 5 is a small piece of RealPlayer and definitely not the piece that
people
>> really want.
>
>Agreed.  Whoever posted the news item on WarpCast didn't have any idea what
>this product was all about.  It contains no Real content playing
capabilities.
>
>> >Also in news:
>> >
>> >http://www.os2ss.com/warpcast/wc4404.html
>> >
>> >-So *please* do not yet start downloading Odin. We will announce it
>> >-officialy the next few days and the web page will be up to date too.
>> >
>> >-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 natively,
>> >-as if they were intended to be OS/2 applications in the first place.
>> >
>>
>> How many programs can be run with Odin?
>
>Take a gander yourself.  Far from an exhaustive list, as these are just what
>the webmaster of this unofficial page happened to try.
>
>http://www.teamos2.org.pl/odin/
>
>- Marty

This is pretty much the same stuff that I heard about a year ago. As for Sin
and Half-life, don't hold your(generic OS/2 user) breath.

This doesn't look good at all. I mean, Regedit, minesweeper, and an real old
copy of Winamp isn't very compelling.

>

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          11-Nov-99 05:03:11
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:25
Subj: Re: Microsoft findings on CDROM

From: [e-mail] (Buddy Donnelly)

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:20:23, [e-mail] a ┌crit dans un message:

snipt
>
> I have not yet linked to the home page. It is at
> http://www.quietvision.com/download/sample.zip

Is this available now? I'm getting a server intercept on that URL.


>
> The one complaint I have had on the interface was from a MS Engineer.
> He said the standards (I guess from a MS heavenly revelation) required
> that to start a read of an audio file required using a
> ctl-alt-esc-upshift-left arrow-tab-R (or somthing to that effect).
> I tried to explain to him when a 2 1/2 could run it himself just
> knowing (after his Dad put the CD in the drive) where the "r" key
> and the "page down" key were that was a good interface. The final
> decision was I refunded his money and left him with a suggestion of where
> all those keys could be put to good use using a manual insertion
> technique.

I like all of that. You should write some original stuff.

>
> >
> >I'm curious about printing, 'cause I don't see it mentioned. Do I have to
> >read these books on the screen, only?
> >
> None, the reason is copyrights. Even on old material there are problems
> in this area. N.C.Wyeth's Illustration of Treasure Island was about
> 1913, therefore out of copyright in the U.S. But I am making
> arrangements to use the Brandywine Museum's transparencies of the
> originals and will pay for the right to do so. In many cases where the
> author left his rights to charity (such as Peter Pan) we honor the
> author's intent even when we do not have to. So no printing.

Hm. I'm not current on that type of restriction on printing public domain
stuff. The act of publishing, legally, is to simply show it to one other
person, not to also facilitate further showings. (Though I'm not a lawyer,
I know someone who has played one on teevee.)


>
> >And is the text 100% boolean searchable somehow, or do you keyword index it
> >yourself?
> Dynamic Character pattern or phrase. index built at run time. Not full
> boolean. Our main market is primary and secondary schools. We keep things
> simple. I do have one person doing a doctoral study on DIckens using this
> feature. There maybe others with unique uses but unless I hear from
> them.....

Nope, the literature of the world needs to land on 100% boolean searchable
digital databses. That's where scholars and numbnutz like myself will be
able to make connections between the wisdoms that never were connectable
before, in less than otherworldly brainpans.

But you've made a good start, especially with the Tom Swift stuff. I wasn't
aware the copyright had lapsed on that.

>
> >We need *more* people around here who are using OS/2 to make a living, not
> >less.
> >
> Be sure Quiet Vision does not use OS/2 because of love of the product.It
> is a down and dirty financial decision. It is cheeper to developed under
> and use OS/2 than Windows.

That's even better. It's why I use it, it's simply better than everything
else that meets all the same requirements.

--

Good luck,

Buddy

Buddy Donnelly
[e-mail]


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

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

From: [e-mail]                     11-Nov-99 04:55:26
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:25
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
  David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:

> How many programs can be run with Odin?

n programs, where n is:

0 < n >= (total number of Win32 Apps)

--
-Steven Hunter                *OS/2 Warp 4 * |
[e-mail] *AMD K6-2 400* |


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: [e-mail]                                   11-Nov-99 05:48:21
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:25
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (ZnU)

In article <80di4p$pjl$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:znu-1011992341530001@192.168.0.2...
> > In article <80cu5u$dl1$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
>
> This will be fun.
>
> <trimmed>
> > > >
> > >
> > > Have read, nice legal fanatsy. What barriers, in reality, not legal
> fantasy?
> >
> > You call the report by an unbiased US federal judge who has read thousands
> > of pages, heard months of testimony, and listened to arguments from first
> > rate lawyers on both sides "legal fantasy"? I'd be interested to know what
> > qualifications you have that allow you to just dismiss his findings.
> > Perhaps you are a sitting or retired US Supreme Court justice?
> >
>
> Unbiased judge, hmmm, heard months of testimony, in his sleep.

Cheap shots aren't going to get you anywhere.

> Who cut and
> pasted complainants documents into his findings.

Because he agreed that they were correct!

> Whos findings are based on
> subjective opinion.

Ha! What parts of the document to you object to?

> My qualifications to dismiss his findings, a citizen of
> the US is not prohibited from having an opinion on any subject, including
> judges.
>
> > The barriers are just as they are set down in the findings of fact. If you
> > disagree, please quote specific passages from the findings of fact and
> > explain why you believe they are "legal fantasy".
> >
>
> I have already done this exercise an have yet to see any proof that these
> allegations occured.

That document _is_ the proof! What do you want? Bill Gates to give you a
call and confess?

> > > > 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.
> >
> > Are you trying to claim that Mac OS and BeOS are harder to learn than
> Windows?
> >
>
> In a word YES.

How so? Why? In what way? I'm sure you can provide examples.

> > > > Nobody is punishing Microsoft because they control the desktop
> > > > market.  They are being punished because they use that control to
> > > > restrict innovation in other companies that might jeopardize that
> > > > monopoly.  Although I dispute the fact that Windows is the best
> > > > choice for 95% of users, whether it is or not is not relevant to the
> > > > case.  What IS relevant is how Microsoft ensures that Windows
> > > > REMAINS the best choice, by stomping down all other possibilities.
> > > > See the bit about Netscape and Java in the Findings of Fact, for
> examples.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is yet to be proven.
> >
> > LOL! Just what do you think findings of fact _are_?! That document details
> > things that have been _proven_ to the satisfaction of a US federal judge
> > with years of experience. I suspect you would agree with the man if you
> > had heard all the evidence!
> >
>
> Just what do you think findings of fact are?

Exactly what I stated they were: "things that have been _proven_ to the
satisfaction of a US federal judge with years of experience". In other
words, real, actual FACTS.

> > > > The judge decided, after the long drawn out trial and hearing both
> > > > sides, that:
> > > >
> > > > "Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling
> > > > innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that
> > > > exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft."
> > > >
> > > > What kind of proof are you looking for, exactly?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The corrolation of these facts, shakey as they are, with the Law.
> >
> > How are they shaky? As for the correlation with the law, some of the MS
> > actions that document details are clearly illegal.
> >
>
> As stated above, some of these "facts" are based on subjective opinion.  The
> supposition that they are illegal has yet to be found, even by this judge.

Which facts are based on subjective opinion? Please give me a list, and
explain why you believe them to be false. Not even Microsoft is spinning
this as much as you are!

> > > > So you think that we are doomed to have a single computer company
> > > > breaking the metaphorical kneecaps of all who dare oppose it?  I
> > > > hope I never get to that level of sheepdom.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nope, IBM was shaken out of that mode my Microsoft, giving us all
> choice.
> >
> > Giving use choice? The choice of Windows and more Windows?
> >
>
> Tunnel vision eh?  Set the way back machine to the mid eighties and see what
> choice you had then, before MS by liberally licensing DOS to any
> manufacturer.  Your choice was IBM, IBM DOS and CGA.  Enjoy.

So we can only get brief periods of choice between periods of monopolized
markets? How'd you like to live in a country where the only time you got
any freedom was during revolution as one dictator overthrew another? And
even then, if you do something the new regime doesn╣t like, you╣re screwed
after it comes to power (i.e. your stuck with orphaned hardware).

> > > > Explain.  I don't see Apple integrating their own, or even any,
> > > > browser with the Mac OS.  I don't see that in Gnome either, which I
> > > > have used.  I haven't used KDE, so I can't comment.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It will happen because it is a good idea.
> >
> > Except that is isn't. People have been editing text since the beginning,
> > yet you don't see an OS with an "integrated" text editor.
> >
>
> Yes you do, Edit and Notepad are integral to NT, DOS had Edlin and internal.
> Try Again.

Integral? They can't be removed? I can't get rid of Notepad? I can't quit
it? It's always present and in my face whenever I use the computer?

> > > > And besides, even if you still believe that that is the case, then
> > > > how do you explain Microsoft's conduct towards Netscape, where they
> > > > discouraged developers to write their applications using the APIs
> > > > that Netscape exposed?  Are you saying that Microsoft is bucking the
> > > > trend that they created?  The simplest explanation, and the one that
> > > > the judge decided is correct, is that the only reason they (cough)
> > > > "integrated" IE with Windows was to, as Alchin (a senior executive
> > > > in Microsoft) put it:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Netscape develped a crap application, and lost marketshare because of
> it. No
> > > other reason.
> >
> > I can't even go on. This entire post demonstrates the effects of a power
> > far greater than Apple's Reality Distortion Field.  I feel very sorry for
> > Mr. Mulligan, for he has been utterly consumed by Microsoft╣s Reality
> > Obliteration Field.
> >
>
> Cant refute anymore so resort to personal attacks.

That is not a personal attack. It is an observation. One that I'm sure
even most of the PC users in this group will agree with!

> I guess your reality
> only allows narrow views, too much time on 7 inch monitors doesn't leave
> scope for much else.

Please explain to me how my "competition is good; I'll use whatever
product is the best for my needs at a give time" view is more narrow than
your "MS is always right; Windows is the best of all possable OSes" view.

--
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 <[e-mail]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>

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

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 01:39:07
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:25
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: Jason <[e-mail]>

David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:

: This is pretty much the same stuff that I heard about a year ago. As for Sin

: and Half-life, don't hold your(generic OS/2 user) breath.

Actually the list is pretty different from the old Win32-Os/2 list.
Although we already had Sin working with the old project.

: This doesn't look good at all. I mean, Regedit, minesweeper, and an real old

: copy of Winamp isn't very compelling.

How about Word 97?  That is pretty compelling.  I think I'll wait and see
what comes along from them before passing judgement just yet.

-Jason

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

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

From: [e-mail]                      10-Nov-99 22:24:26
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:25
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:znu-1111990045140001@192.168.0.2...
> In article <80di4p$pjl$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:znu-1011992341530001@192.168.0.2...
> > > In article <80cu5u$dl1$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
> > > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> >
> > This will be fun.
> >
> > <trimmed>
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Have read, nice legal fanatsy. What barriers, in reality, not legal
> > fantasy?
> > >
> > > You call the report by an unbiased US federal judge who has read
thousands
> > > of pages, heard months of testimony, and listened to arguments from
first
> > > rate lawyers on both sides "legal fantasy"? I'd be interested to know
what
> > > qualifications you have that allow you to just dismiss his findings.
> > > Perhaps you are a sitting or retired US Supreme Court justice?
> > >
> >
> > Unbiased judge, hmmm, heard months of testimony, in his sleep.
>
> Cheap shots aren't going to get you anywhere.


Except grounds for appeal.

>
> > Who cut and
> > pasted complainants documents into his findings.
>
> Because he agreed that they were correct!
>
> > Whos findings are based on
> > subjective opinion.
>
> Ha! What parts of the document to you object to?
>

Quite a bit.

> > My qualifications to dismiss his findings, a citizen of
> > the US is not prohibited from having an opinion on any subject,
including
> > judges.
> >
> > > The barriers are just as they are set down in the findings of fact. If
you
> > > disagree, please quote specific passages from the findings of fact and
> > > explain why you believe they are "legal fantasy".
> > >
> >
> > I have already done this exercise an have yet to see any proof that
these
> > allegations occured.
>
> That document _is_ the proof! What do you want? Bill Gates to give you a
> call and confess?
>
> > > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Are you trying to claim that Mac OS and BeOS are harder to learn than
> > Windows?
> > >
> >
> > In a word YES.
>
> How so? Why? In what way? I'm sure you can provide examples.
>

Have in other posts.

> > > > > Nobody is punishing Microsoft because they control the desktop
> > > > > market.  They are being punished because they use that control to
> > > > > restrict innovation in other companies that might jeopardize that
> > > > > monopoly.  Although I dispute the fact that Windows is the best
> > > > > choice for 95% of users, whether it is or not is not relevant to
the
> > > > > case.  What IS relevant is how Microsoft ensures that Windows
> > > > > REMAINS the best choice, by stomping down all other possibilities.
> > > > > See the bit about Netscape and Java in the Findings of Fact, for
> > examples.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > That is yet to be proven.
> > >
> > > LOL! Just what do you think findings of fact _are_?! That document
details
> > > things that have been _proven_ to the satisfaction of a US federal
judge
> > > with years of experience. I suspect you would agree with the man if
you
> > > had heard all the evidence!
> > >
> >
> > Just what do you think findings of fact are?
>
> Exactly what I stated they were: "things that have been _proven_ to the
> satisfaction of a US federal judge with years of experience". In other
> words, real, actual FACTS.
>

Subject to findings of Law.

> > > > > The judge decided, after the long drawn out trial and hearing both
> > > > > sides, that:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling
> > > > > innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that
> > > > > exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft."
> > > > >
> > > > > What kind of proof are you looking for, exactly?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The corrolation of these facts, shakey as they are, with the Law.
> > >
> > > How are they shaky? As for the correlation with the law, some of the
MS
> > > actions that document details are clearly illegal.
> > >
> >
> > As stated above, some of these "facts" are based on subjective opinion.
The
> > supposition that they are illegal has yet to be found, even by this
judge.
>
> Which facts are based on subjective opinion? Please give me a list, and
> explain why you believe them to be false. Not even Microsoft is spinning
> this as much as you are!
>

If you cannot tell, how can you refute it.

> > > > > So you think that we are doomed to have a single computer company
> > > > > breaking the metaphorical kneecaps of all who dare oppose it?  I
> > > > > hope I never get to that level of sheepdom.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nope, IBM was shaken out of that mode my Microsoft, giving us all
> > choice.
> > >
> > > Giving use choice? The choice of Windows and more Windows?
> > >
> >
> > Tunnel vision eh?  Set the way back machine to the mid eighties and see
what
> > choice you had then, before MS by liberally licensing DOS to any
> > manufacturer.  Your choice was IBM, IBM DOS and CGA.  Enjoy.
>
> So we can only get brief periods of choice between periods of monopolized
> markets? How'd you like to live in a country where the only time you got
> any freedom was during revolution as one dictator overthrew another? And
> even then, if you do something the new regime doesn╣t like, you╣re screwed
> after it comes to power (i.e. your stuck with orphaned hardware).
>

Sounds like a Mac Users problem.  My point was that before MS challenged the
real monopolists, there was no choice period.

> > > > > Explain.  I don't see Apple integrating their own, or even any,
> > > > > browser with the Mac OS.  I don't see that in Gnome either, which
I
> > > > > have used.  I haven't used KDE, so I can't comment.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > It will happen because it is a good idea.
> > >
> > > Except that is isn't. People have been editing text since the
beginning,
> > > yet you don't see an OS with an "integrated" text editor.
> > >
> >
> > Yes you do, Edit and Notepad are integral to NT, DOS had Edlin and
internal.
> > Try Again.
>
> Integral? They can't be removed? I can't get rid of Notepad? I can't quit
> it? It's always present and in my face whenever I use the computer?
>

Note pad is there in a proper install, they gave enough choice that you can
even use vi if you are masochistic.

> > > > > And besides, even if you still believe that that is the case, then
> > > > > how do you explain Microsoft's conduct towards Netscape, where
they
> > > > > discouraged developers to write their applications using the APIs
> > > > > that Netscape exposed?  Are you saying that Microsoft is bucking
the
> > > > > trend that they created?  The simplest explanation, and the one
that
> > > > > the judge decided is correct, is that the only reason they (cough)
> > > > > "integrated" IE with Windows was to, as Alchin (a senior executive
> > > > > in Microsoft) put it:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Netscape develped a crap application, and lost marketshare because
of
> > it. No
> > > > other reason.
> > >
> > > I can't even go on. This entire post demonstrates the effects of a
power
> > > far greater than Apple's Reality Distortion Field.  I feel very sorry
for
> > > Mr. Mulligan, for he has been utterly consumed by Microsoft╣s Reality
> > > Obliteration Field.
> > >
> >
> > Cant refute anymore so resort to personal attacks.
>
> That is not a personal attack. It is an observation. One that I'm sure
> even most of the PC users in this group will agree with!
>

Bull shit that is a plain and simple personal attack.  Talk about spin.

> > I guess your reality
> > only allows narrow views, too much time on 7 inch monitors doesn't leave
> > scope for much else.
>
> Please explain to me how my "competition is good; I'll use whatever
> product is the best for my needs at a give time" view is more narrow than
> your "MS is always right; Windows is the best of all possable OSes" view.
>

Now you spin your MS is automatically wrong attitude.  I do use what ever
product is best.

> --
> 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.


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

>            --IBM maintenance manual, 1925
>
> ZnU <[e-mail]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>


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

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

From: [e-mail]                    11-Nov-99 06:57:29
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 03:54:25
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (John Hong)

Hobbyist (alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net) wrote:

: > The post -COULD- have been credible right up till the end, when he
: > gave himself away by practically begging the rest of us OS/2 users to
: > switch to Windows.

: What's so incredible about that?

    Please, please drop OS/2...I have, so everyone else must!  Yeah,
sure, whatever.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                 10-Nov-99 23:15:28
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:23
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: "Erik" <[e-mail]>

Stan Goodman wrote:

[e-mail] (The Doctor) wrote:
>
> > In article <942217866.56827858@news>, Barry Adams  <[e-mail]>
wrote:
> > >On Tue, 09 Nov 1999, Erik wrote:
>
> ------------snip-----------
>
> > >>If there is any kind of penalty imposed on Microsoft perhaps they
could
> > >>diversify to BC; where we are also tired of this bogus government
> > >>intervention against success.  (After our present 'gov't' is gone, of
> > >>course).


> You mean you think that a company can sit in Canada and run a business in
> restraint of trade in the US?

1: You need to learn how those little >>> attribution thingies work.  I
wrote the above; not 'The Doctor', or 'Barry Adams'.

2: You need to recognize that Canada is not yet conjoined with the US.

3: You might mail-order a dictionary and look up 'sarcasm'.

Nighty-night.

E.Schild
[e-mail]




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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     10-Nov-99 23:35:15
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:23
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>

Drestin Black wrote:
>
> ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:znu-1011991921580001@192.168.0.2...
> > In article <[e-mail]>, "Drestin Black"
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > > news:znu-1011991606230001@192.168.0.2...
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > >Findings of fact are generally
> > > > not overturned.
> > >
> > > True. I was refering to his previous MS related rulings, both were
> > > overturned.
> >
> > You implied that these findings of fact would suffer the same fate.
> I did not imply this. I am saying I think his final verdict will be
> overturned. I think his findings of fact is weak.

"Weak"?

An appeals is not allowed to judge the weakness or strength of a finding
of fact since not other judge was there at the time of discoverly.  Only
the trial judge is there and only he can judge the credibility of a
witness.

Judges are not dumb.  The know how to find fact in such a way as to
"stack the decks" and write a finding of fact that will withstand an
appeal of the law.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     10-Nov-99 23:59:22
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:23
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Chad Mulligan wrote:

> Mark Robinson <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> > >
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Are you trying to claim that Mac OS and BeOS are harder to learn than
> > > Windows?
> > > >
> > >
> > > In a word YES.
> >
> > How so?
> >
>
> This is a subjective opinion based on more than 10 years teaching computer
> use. It is based on what is necessary for the user to learn to begin being
> useful and how much about computing the user will learn in the long term.
> Windows while not being the quickest for startup will encourage the users to
> learn more about computing in general than the Mac.  BeOS being Unix base
> cannot make such a claim.

I think what you're backing into is that there are so many problems with a
Wintel PC that the user is FORCED to do more system adminstration and
tinkering.  Gartner Group and others call this extra "learning" a cost.  MS is
trying to lower this cost.  I must admit -- it is very creative to say the
sysadmin Windows forces on a user is a plus.  That a user learns more and thus
is benfits.  Of course  you're not the one paying that person's salary.

No I have no clue how my phone works so it's not as good as a PC.  A PC
encourages me to learn more about computers so I can add hardware to a PC so
the
PC can run the new, bloated software.   When the phone service is upgraded,
I'm
clueless.  It's invisible to me -- except for the lower phone rates the
upgrades
enable.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     11-Nov-99 00:07:04
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:23
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Chad Mulligan wrote:

> ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:znu-1111990045140001@192.168.0.2...
>

>
> > > Unbiased judge, hmmm, heard months of testimony, in his sleep.
> >
> > Cheap shots aren't going to get you anywhere.
>
> Except grounds for appeal.

Oh please elaborate.   What legal right was violated ?

And I'd love to know how cheap shots are going to have a positive impact on
any
the appeal.   Do courts encourage disrespectful baiting of Judges?  No they do
not.

Judge Jackson allowed MS broad latitude in their examinations so they cannot
claim he cut them short.  Boring a Judge to sleep isn't the right of a
defendant.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     11-Nov-99 00:21:25
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:23
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Chad Mulligan wrote:

> ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:znu-1011992341530001@192.168.0.2...
>

> Unbiased judge, hmmm, heard months of testimony, in his sleep.  Who cut and
> pasted complainants documents into his findings.  Whos findings are based on
> subjective opinion.  My qualifications to dismiss his findings, a citizen of
> the US is not prohibited from having an opinion on any subject, including
> judges.

You do have the right to be wrong.

I'm not sure how may court cases are NOT based on evaluating subjective
opinion.  As Jackson reminded MS early on, courts have been established for
that
very purpose - to evaluate and find fact out of subjective opinion.  That's
why
the finding of fact is so significant.  It has been done so now move on.
Whining that a finding of fact is based on subjective opinion is like
complaining about finding beef in a hamburger.

> The barriers are just as they are set down in the findings of fact. If you

> > disagree, please quote specific passages from the findings of fact and
> > explain why you believe they are "legal fantasy".
>
> I have already done this exercise an have yet to see any proof that these
> allegations occured.

The MS advocates are increasingly finding themselves outside the realm of
reasonable arguments.  Barriers to market entry are clearly described in the
finding of fact and they have been reported in all major news outlets.  We
need
to move on to the next phase and stop kidding ourselves that we can change the
rules of the process.  You can disagree that barriers exist and you can hold
to
that opinion as the case progresses.  What do you have is  a categorical
dismissal of a Judge and a reference to your right to free speech -- not very
convincing.




>
>
> > > > 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.
> >
> > Are you trying to claim that Mac OS and BeOS are harder to learn than
> Windows?
> >
>
> In a word YES.
>
> > > > Nobody is punishing Microsoft because they control the desktop
> > > > market.  They are being punished because they use that control to
> > > > restrict innovation in other companies that might jeopardize that
> > > > monopoly.  Although I dispute the fact that Windows is the best
> > > > choice for 95% of users, whether it is or not is not relevant to the
> > > > case.  What IS relevant is how Microsoft ensures that Windows
> > > > REMAINS the best choice, by stomping down all other possibilities.
> > > > See the bit about Netscape and Java in the Findings of Fact, for
> examples.
> > > >
> > >
> > > That is yet to be proven.
> >
> > LOL! Just what do you think findings of fact _are_?! That document details
> > things that have been _proven_ to the satisfaction of a US federal judge
> > with years of experience. I suspect you would agree with the man if you
> > had heard all the evidence!
> >
>
> Just what do you think findings of fact are?
>
> > > > The judge decided, after the long drawn out trial and hearing both
> > > > sides, that:
> > > >
> > > > "Microsoft's past success in hurting such companies and stifling
> > > > innovation deters investment in technologies and businesses that
> > > > exhibit the potential to threaten Microsoft."
> > > >
> > > > What kind of proof are you looking for, exactly?
> > > >
> > >
> > > The corrolation of these facts, shakey as they are, with the Law.
> >
> > How are they shaky? As for the correlation with the law, some of the MS
> > actions that document details are clearly illegal.
> >
>
> As stated above, some of these "facts" are based on subjective opinion.  The
> supposition that they are illegal has yet to be found, even by this judge.
>
> > > > So you think that we are doomed to have a single computer company
> > > > breaking the metaphorical kneecaps of all who dare oppose it?  I
> > > > hope I never get to that level of sheepdom.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Nope, IBM was shaken out of that mode my Microsoft, giving us all
> choice.
> >
> > Giving use choice? The choice of Windows and more Windows?
> >
>
> Tunnel vision eh?  Set the way back machine to the mid eighties and see what
> choice you had then, before MS by liberally licensing DOS to any
> manufacturer.  Your choice was IBM, IBM DOS and CGA.  Enjoy.
>
> > > > Explain.  I don't see Apple integrating their own, or even any,
> > > > browser with the Mac OS.  I don't see that in Gnome either, which I
> > > > have used.  I haven't used KDE, so I can't comment.
> > > >
> > >
> > > It will happen because it is a good idea.
> >
> > Except that is isn't. People have been editing text since the beginning,
> > yet you don't see an OS with an "integrated" text editor.
> >
>
> Yes you do, Edit and Notepad are integral to NT, DOS had Edlin and internal.
> Try Again.
>
> > > > And besides, even if you still believe that that is the case, then
> > > > how do you explain Microsoft's conduct towards Netscape, where they
> > > > discouraged developers to write their applications using the APIs
> > > > that Netscape exposed?  Are you saying that Microsoft is bucking the
> > > > trend that they created?  The simplest explanation, and the one that
> > > > the judge decided is correct, is that the only reason they (cough)
> > > > "integrated" IE with Windows was to, as Alchin (a senior executive
> > > > in Microsoft) put it:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Netscape develped a crap application, and lost marketshare because of
> it. No
> > > other reason.
> >
> > I can't even go on. This entire post demonstrates the effects of a power
> > far greater than Apple's Reality Distortion Field.  I feel very sorry for
> > Mr. Mulligan, for he has been utterly consumed by Microsoft√s Reality
> > Obliteration Field.
> >
>
> Cant refute anymore so resort to personal attacks.  I guess your reality
> only allows narrow views, too much time on 7 inch monitors doesn't leave
> scope for much else.
>
> > --
> > 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.
>
> --
> Armageddon means never having to say you're sorry
> >            --IBM maintenance manual, 1925
> >
> > ZnU <[e-mail]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     11-Nov-99 00:49:28
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:23
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Chad Mulligan wrote:

> Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:
> > >
> > > Joe Ragosta <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > > news:[e-mail]...
> > > > In article <znu-1011991606230001@192.168.0.2>, [e-mail] (ZnU)
> <trimmed>
> > > >
> > >
> > > You must learn to try harder. Not give up so easily.
> >
> > Amen brother.  We just need to understand how to ammend the US
> > Constitution to allow a court of appeals to over turn the findings of
> > fact in a case.
> >
> >
>
> They can, and have in the past, overturn cases by finding that the findings
> of fact have no factual basis or that the findings of fact aren't found
> through proper procedure.

Let us * not * pretend we're a MS Lawyer and * instead * make a coherent,
end-to-end analysis.

In this case you'll *still* need that constitutional amendment.  The
mechanisms
you offer cannot overturn his finding of fact.  You need new laws.  If you
think you can argue that his finding of fact has NO factual basis then you're
going to have to explain its close agreement with the evidence and conclusions
the DOJ presented.  Those are the factual basis.  Or maybe you can tell us
what
improper procedure was used that would invalidate all the facts -- given he
has
broad latitude in how he can try a case.   

Let's be more concise.  There is no legal right to purger or mislead a court.
A poorly presented case and  incredible witnesses are not protected under the
law, they are discouraged.  How?  By ignoring them in the finding of fact.
Maybe MS's lawyers will insist the appeals court listen to the full Gates'
deposition.  I'd be game.


>
> > > > If you accept the Findings of Fact (which the appeals court pretty
> much
> > > > has to do), the verdict is pretty self-evident.
> > >
> > > Gee, guess we can just skip the rest of the legal system eh?
> >
> > No.  We just need to know that a case is appealed on the findings of
> > law, not on overturning the findings of fact.
> >
>
> You seem to be under the misunderstanding that a "finding of fact" is
> written in stone, fortunately our legal system takes into account that
> Judges are humanly falible and allows reversal of any finding (factual or
> law) since such findings are merely the opinion of the jurist present.

I know a finding of fact can be challenged and I can think of a few RARE cases
when one or two facts were.  I think YOUR problem is a confusion with singular
and plural.  Fact or Facts.  As I understand the process, it would be
necessary
to find each of his facts, including the credibility of the witness in error.
That is not possible in this case.  Since he essentially agreed with the DOJ's
story, the facts are extensive and traceable to the witnesses.

> > We would NOT want to skip the leagal system - just encourage some
> > advocates to recognize Judge Jackson and only Judge Jackson was
> > entrusted to find fact.
> >
> > He is no dummy. He knows the case will be appealed and so his finding of
> > law will be based on a mountain of fact favorable to the DOJ and States.
>
> His facts aren't edicts from on high and can be challenged in appeal, and
> given his record could quite probably be reversed.  F

And  facts are not whims easily challenged which is why not one legal expert
on
either side of the case is making the suggestion (as reported by the press)
that the finding of facts will be "over turned".   Or that some appeals court
will write their own finding of fact.  And one does not reverse facts.   Maybe
you can find a pointer to an expert that thinks like you.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  11-Nov-99 09:21:24
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:23
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Stan Goodman)

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:15:56, "Erik" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>
> Stan Goodman wrote:
> > ------------snip-----------


> > > >>If there is any kind of penalty imposed on Microsoft perhaps they
> could
> > > >>diversify to BC; where we are also tired of this bogus government
> > > >>intervention against success.  (After our present 'gov't' is gone, of
> > > >>course).
>
>
> > You mean you think that a company can sit in Canada and run a business in
> > restraint of trade in the US?
>
> 1: You need to learn how those little >>> attribution thingies work.  I
> wrote the above; not 'The Doctor', or 'Barry Adams'.

Sorry. I knew who wrote it; you were the only one with a Canadian email
address.

> 2: You need to recognize that Canada is not yet conjoined with the US.

No, that is clear to me: Canada can permit any sort of commercial abuse it
wants to within its territory. What is less clear is how Microsoft, having
fled to Canada to avoid US antitrust action, would survive with the US
market denied to it. Any company doing business in the US is subject to US
law. Maybe you need to understand that a company doing business outside its
home country is subject to the laws of the place in which it is doing
business.

> 3: You might mail-order a dictionary and look up 'sarcasm'.

?

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

Spammers are getting smarter; email sent to [e-mail] will 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: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 11:10:00
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:23
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Thomas Galley <[e-mail]>

Hey!

It has nothing to do with the american military, but with military in
general. I think it kind of strange that what is now perceived by many
as an anarchist medium (sorry for the big words) has its origins in the
military.

I say again, I wanted in no way insult the american army, though there
sure did happen a lot of things after WW2 that they should not be too
proud of.

Sincere greetings

Thomas

fmc wrote:
>
> Thomas Galley wrote:
>
> > Hey!
> >
> > The internet may have started as an american military research project
> > (beurk!!!), but it became "the Internet" just after Europeans in Geneva
> > (ever heard of Tim Berners-Lee) invented the WWW, mind you!
>
> Beurk?  Are you tossing your cookies because the American Military played a
pivotal
> role in saving Europe from itself in 2 World Wars?  Was it their role in
> preventing a post war communist takeover of the entire continent, or has
the
> collapse of the  totalitarian regimes of Eastern Europe and the USSR led to
your
> stomach upset?
>
> fmc

--
PIRONET INTRANET AG
Thomas Paul Galley, MA (CCNA) - Internet/Intranet Trainee
Im Mediapark 5 - 50670 Köln
Tel.: [phone] - FAX: [phone]
mailto:[e-mail] - http://www.pironet.com
certified professional Java Programmer (see link below)
http://www.tekmetrics.com/transcript.shtml?pid=57102

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PIRONET AG News-System (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                10-Nov-99 21:35:29
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:24
Subj: Re: MS is a monopoly - but here is a legit questrion

From: [e-mail] (Jerry McBride)

In article <382964bc$2$obot$[e-mail]>,
Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote:
--- snip ---

>Thanks for the pointer which led me to Caldera's website on which I found
>something which must really have the underware turing brown in Redmond. It
>is the first paragraph of the Court's response to several petitions by
>MicroSoft for partial summary judgement. (An attempt by MicroSoft to get
>the charges or some of them dropped)
>
>Here are the words of the Judge:
>
--- snip, BUT do read Bob's post! ---

>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.
>

WOW!

These really ARE interesting times we live in! :')


--

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

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


/----------------------------------------\
| From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
|         [e-mail]             |
\----------------------------------------/

--

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

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

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          11-Nov-99 07:04:14
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:24
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, John Hong posted :

> Hobbyist (alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net) wrote:
>
> : > The post -COULD- have been credible right up till the end, when he
> : > gave himself away by practically begging the rest of us OS/2 users to
> : > switch to Windows.
>
> : What's so incredible about that?
>
>     Please, please drop OS/2...I have, so everyone else must!  Yeah,
> sure, whatever.

He did not say that!!!

But of course, the typical warped mentality and interpretation of
views negative for OS/2 sets in. Pun intended.

--
-=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: [e-mail]                    11-Nov-99 12:13:13
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:24
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (John Hong)

Hobbyist (alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net) wrote:
: On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, John Hong posted :

: > Hobbyist (alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net) wrote:
: >
: > : > The post -COULD- have been credible right up till the end, when he
: > : > gave himself away by practically begging the rest of us OS/2 users to
: > : > switch to Windows.
: >
: > : What's so incredible about that?
: >
: >     Please, please drop OS/2...I have, so everyone else must!  Yeah,
: > sure, whatever.

: He did not say that!!!

    Excuse me, but what post were you reading?  He said OS/2 was
dead, so move on.  Therefore it is quite possible if not probable to
interpret that as what I had stated earlier.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                    11-Nov-99 12:21:20
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:24
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (John Hong)

Hobbyist (alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net) wrote:

: >     Please, please drop OS/2...I have, so everyone else must!  Yeah,
: > sure, whatever.

: He did not say that!!!

: But of course, the typical warped mentality and interpretation of
: views negative for OS/2 sets in. Pun intended.

    Here is a quote from the last part of the original message, you
can check DejaNews if you wish:

> the OS is dead get with the times OS/2-ers
>              Leave OS/2
>                                Its not that bad over-here in NT land.

    Either you missed this or you simply didn't read the entire
message.  Eitherway, the intent of the post is pretty clear.

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

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

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          11-Nov-99 07:33:10
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:24
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, Brad BARCLAY said :

>     Okay - I've been active in the OS/2 community for at least 7 years now
> - so why is it that once every few weeks I see a lengthy post from some
> person I've never heard of or seen online before about why they're
> abandoning OS/2 for Windows?

Funny, I had a similar experience.

I never posted in a newsgroup until I abandoned OS/2 and the first
group I posted to was COOA. :) Note his initial remark:

"I was a long time OS/2 user, since 2.0 (pre service pack) and I just
recently moved to NT.  I feel a need to share my experiences with OS/2
and why I liked it and why I'm not using it anymore.  Maybe some of
you have gone through this and can reminisce.  Maybe some of you are
going through the same thing right now.  Maybe there are some of you
who are still die hard users and holding on to OS/2 for dear life.  No
matter what your current psychological state regarding OS/2 is please
read my long and boring story as I cast it out into the digital void.
This process will help me cleanse my soul if nothing else."

I can certainly identify with those sentiments since OS/2 is a special
OS and one tends to get attached to it and it's small community of
SOHO users, except of course, the bulk of the posters here at COOA. :)

I had initially subscribed to keep abreast of what's happening with
OS/2. Then I discovered the phenomenon of the OS zealot and the
amazing exagerrations that were being claimed about win9x and NT being
unstable, useless trash etc. I found myself defending these OS's and
then being labelled a MS salesman. I unsubscribed of course. This is
actually, a response to a cross-post. Funny, when an OS/2 advocate
defends his choice it's rare for him to be called an IBM salesman.
<sigh> Advocate a Microsoft OS and then suddenly, you're advocating
Microsoft the company and everything that they're about. Give me a
break. This is the kind of obsession I can't stand.

After a long time of using NT I finally began to simply focus on the
fact that whether or not NT is made by a company of questionable
repute, it does work better for me than OS/2, and this is all that
matters.

Hats off to those OS/2 users who genuinely find OS/2 useful, have
really used other solutions including NT and have given them, fair
unbiased assessment.

Many posters on COOA, however, reak of this lack of objectivity and
these are the ones who post these 'head in the sand quips' about
posters who say negative things about OS/2 or actually claim that they
prefer NT to OS/2 after years of using OS/2, as being liers and MS
salesmen.


--
-=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: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 12:34:13
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:24
Subj: Re: [README] New banners available

From: [e-mail] (Paul F. Johnson)

Hiya,

>And did anyone see Gate$ statement on teletext? He admits "Microsoft's
>days are numbered". I don't remember the page, but a short search
>through the small stories section should find it ;-)

Quick, add this to the other Gates sayings (like What's a network?)

TTFN

Paul
----
The views expressed here may not be those of RiscStation Ltd, nor of
University of Salford.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: University of Salford, Salford, Manchester, UK (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 12:57:23
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:24
Subj: Re: History suggests that things don't always improve when a monopoly i

From: [e-mail]

On Sun, 7 Nov 1999 15:51:54, "David D. Huff Jr."
<[e-mail]> wrote about some Kelly Robinson drivel:

> Your are historically deficient. The only people you will convince are those
too
> young to know any better. Your revisionist view lacks truth.
>
I disagree with the second sentence but only because I think
that children that young shouldn't be allowed on the net.

Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT
octa4.net.au
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 12:57:25
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:24
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: [e-mail]

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 04:43:24, [e-mail] wrote:

[offensive derogatory shit deleted]
What an ugly ugly american! I do hope some of  you US of
Aers feel ashamed of being the same nationality as this
author.

Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT
octa4.net.au
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 12:57:26
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:24
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: [e-mail] (Richard A Crane)

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 12:48:44, Steve Drewell
<[e-mail]> wrote:


> ε
> ε IBM has "branches" all over the world. Nevertheless, it's an American
> ε company. That makes sense. The USA is the leader in the computer
> ε business.
>
> Excuse me, but are you an idiot? You argue that we Europeans are
> technologically inferior but when it's pointed out that one of the largest
> technological companies in the world has a prime R&D site in Europe,
> manned predominantly by Europeans, you dismiss it. What do you have
> against Europeans? Are you another closed-minded American?
>
yes he is so just killfile him and get on with your life :)
The quality of which is probably better that those poor
Americanos!

Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT
octa4.net.au
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 12:57:24
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 10:44:24
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: [e-mail]

On Mon, 8 Nov 1999 20:07:35, [e-mail] (Jeff
Glatt) wrote:

> >David T. Johnson
> >If you are an OS/2 user and you've wondered why past OS/2 Software
> >Developers have mysteriously folded their tents and ran, not walked,
> >away from OS/2 (including IBM), here is a BIG reason:
>
> Again, as an ex-OS/2 developer who has also listened to and conversed
> with other ex-OS/2 developers, I know that judge's "finding of fact"
> has little bearing to reality. OS/2 developers abandoned OS/2 mostly
> because they completely lost any faith in IBM as a "partner" (and I
> use that term is the loosest sense). I've outlined a lot of reasons
> for that in my other posts here, and cited examples of the opinions of
> ex-OS/2 developers.
>
> Perhaps if the judge had actually *heard* from real, ex-OS/2
> developers (instead of merely companies that gave OS/2 cheap lip
> service, but who otherwise never invested much of their revenue in it,
> such as IBM and Lotus), he'd know the truth about what happened. I
> think that it's most telling that the judge rendered such a "finding
> of fact", and even mentioned OS/2 as an example to prove his point,
> and yet he didn't even hear from Brad Wardell. Was someone at IBM
> afraid that Wardell would repeat some of the things that Brad says in
> his "history of OS/2" on Stardock's web site, and inform the judge of
> how prominently IBM's incompetence and lack of commitment to a niche
> product figured into OS/2's "lack of success"? Did some arm pulling go
> on to exclude the views of ex-OS/2 developers? I don't recall any real
> OS/2 developers testifying. All I recall seeing at the trial were
> failed Windows/MS-DOS ISVs such as IBM, Netscape, and Caldera.

Oh Jeff are you peeved that MS didn't call you to give this
evidence?
You may not know it but MS got a chance to call its evidence
and present its case also. Or are you saying that MS with
its vast resources couldn't employ lawyers who could find
witnesses to say this in Court eg MS lost because they had
dud lawyers!
Alternatively we may conclude that Jeff's (and Muts like
him) claims will not stand up in Court eg MS lawyers thought
the evidence unconvincing or the witness so unconvincing (or
possibly even damaging to MS's case) that they wouldn't put
them on the stand - remember MS whilst on this type of trial
isn't bound to present the "truth" (but are bound to o
present truthfully their case eg no lies but no obligation
to bring up stuff that does not help their case).  ASIDE - I
would welcome a US lawyers contribution on this as to
whether the DOJ was under a prosecutors obligation eg
disclose all evidence favourable or not or the private
litigant's obligation (as sketched out above).

So we can leave this claim as really one that advances
either:  MS with its vast fortunes employed incompetent
lawyers; Jeff's claim's are likely to fail if subjected to
close scrutiny, or; MS was worried about what else people in
Jeff's position could tell the Court.

I note that no one else has yet suggested that MS  had "dud'
lawyers.

Richard A Crane
Barrister & Solicitor
slightly altered email (anti-spamming) rcrane AT
octa4.net.au
OR rcrane AT attglobal.net


PS If you (Jeff Glatt) wish to reply to this then please
email me as I shall not see your posts in future (welcome to
my killfile) nor should we waste the newsgroups bandwidth
with what is bound to be personal abuse and scurrilous
attacks on grammatical, spelling or typing ability and or
parentage now that logic has exhausted itself.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Octa4 Pty Ltd (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                           11-Nov-99 08:09:25
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:01
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <znu-1111990045140001@192.168.0.2>, on 11/11/99 at 05:48 AM,
   [e-mail] (ZnU) said:

> > As stated above, some of these "facts" are based on subjective opinion.
The
> > supposition that they are illegal has yet to be found, even by this judge.

> Which facts are based on subjective opinion? Please give me a list, and
> explain why you believe them to be false. Not even Microsoft is spinning
> this as much as you are!

What the idiot lemming you responded to fails to realize (and which is
demonstrated by the Supreme Court precedents cited in Judge Jackson's
opinion) is that a series of entirely legal actions taken together can
constitute illegal restraint of trade. This is very similar to the
position of the DOJ in its 1952 suit against IBM.

It was entirely legal for IBM to design and build accounting machines.

It was entirely legal for IBM to refuse to sell said machines.

It was entirely legal for IBM to lease said machines.

It was entirely legal for IBM to include customer service fees in its
leases.

It was entirely legal for IBM to refuse to let third party parts be
intalled in their machines.

It was entirely legal for IBM to announce its plans for new machines.

However it was illegal for IBM to use those factors in such a way as to
destroy all meaningful competition. And, IBM which did much spinning
finally did sign a consent decree and allow sale of its products, stop
announcing machines not already in development, etc.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                    11-Nov-99 13:15:16
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:01
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (John Hong)

Hobbyist (alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net) wrote:

: actually, a response to a cross-post. Funny, when an OS/2 advocate
: defends his choice it's rare for him to be called an IBM salesman.

    Trust me, that is the *last* thing an OS/2 user wants to be nowadays.

:-)

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

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

From: [e-mail]                           11-Nov-99 08:21:02
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:01
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/11/99 at 01:41 AM,
   [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt) said:

> That's ok. Maybe if he gets a long enough record of delivering losing
> decisions, they'll reduce his caseload and then he'll have time to sleep
> at home instead of literally in the court room during his trials

This is a libelous statement. I have forwarded your posting to Judge
Jackson's clerk.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           11-Nov-99 08:27:28
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:01
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <80dldi$qp6$[e-mail]>, on 11/10/99 at 09:50 PM,
   "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]> said:

> > You're living in a dream world.
> >

> Am I?

Yes you sure are. A professor of computer science at Princeton University
was hired by the DOJ to verify that MS was lying when it claimed that IE
was so tightly integrated into Windows 98 that it couldn't be separated.
He demonstrated during the testimony phase that this was absolutely
untruthful. He wrote a program which removed IE completely from Windows 98
which ran faster than it did with IE integrated, ran all MS programs
exactly as documented. Moreover, he was able to run the removed IE as a
standalone program and did so in court.

Once a witness has been shown to be perjurious, that witness's testimony
is generally disregarded or even stricken from the record. The same is
true of a series of witnesses whose testimonies are if not palpably
perjurious apparently untrue or self-serving. How many criminals are
serving justly deserved sentences in prison despite a string of friends
and family members who swore under oath that the defendant was in church
at the time he was charged with committing the crime?

Judge Jackson in this case is the finder of fact. He stated that he found
some of the MicroSoft witnesses to be incredible. One only has to read the
transcript of Gates' testimony to understand why he was considered
unbelievable by Judge Jackson. Any reasonable person knowing who Gates is,
what he has accomplished, what he has said in published articles, on
television, etc. to know he was disembling on the stand.

Judge Jackson had both the testimony and demonstration of Felton to find
the statements of MS witnesses about the inability of Windows 98 to
function without IE being installed and the ability of IE to be run as a
standalone program to find the testimony of MS executives, programmers,
etc. incredible.

And, finally, one only has to purchase Windows 98, Release 2 to find a
copy of Windows 98 without IE. One can choose a custom install and not
include IE. Windows 98 runs fine, Netscape can be loaded and run, etc.
Again proving the lies told by MS witnesses under oath.

As to your statement that findings of fact can be overturned by an
appellate court, you are correct. HOWEVER, the appelate court must find
that the Judge (or jury for that matter) disregarded the testimony and had
no basis for his findings. Judge Jackson in his findings clearly
demonstrated time and again the rationale behind his findings. They are
justified by reference to testimony, citation of precedents, etc.

Read a fair collection of denials of new trials by appellate courts where
the issue was error on the finder of fact. It is extremely rare for an
appellate court to agree with the party found guilty to prevail because a
reading of the transcript cannot give the appeals judge(s) the demeanor of
the witness. Lies on paper may and often do appear to be truthful.
However, the finder of fact SAW the witness testify, OBSERVED his or her
body language, etc. The appelate court does not have this luxury and
defers to the finder of fact in virtually all such cases.

However, in cases such as the one at hand, the finder of fact states
clearly why he found certain testimony suspect at best. He cites
demonstrable facts which refute the claims of MS. It would be historic
were the circuit court of appeals to overturn Judge Jackson.

Moreover, I must point out to you that when MS was ordered to release a
version of Windows 98 without IE it did so despite saying it would appeal.
This was because it was by then aware of Felton's success in showing it
could be done.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           11-Nov-99 08:46:29
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:01
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <80di4p$pjl$[e-mail]>, on 11/10/99 at 08:54 PM,
   "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]> said:

> Unbiased judge, hmmm, heard months of testimony, in his sleep.  Who cut
> and pasted complainants documents into his findings.  Whos findings are
> based on subjective opinion.  My qualifications to dismiss his findings,
> a citizen of the US is not prohibited from having an opinion on any
> subject, including judges.

You blooming idiot. It is quite obvious you have never read an finding of
fact. Judge Jackson's findings could serve as a textbook in law school.

A finder of fact, be it the judge or a jury, must by definition make
objective findings from subjective testimony in virtually every case. In a
murder trial, a detective states that he discovered a warm gun in the
pocket of the suspect running from the scene.

This is fact.

A criminologist testifies that the gun is of the same make and caliber of
the bullet fragments found in the skull of the victim but that an exact
match cannot be made. He states, however, that he is reasonably sure the
gun recovered is the murder weapon.

This is a combination of fact and opinion.

Three people who knew the victim state the victim had a long standing
dispute with the defendant and feared the defendant.

This is pure opinion.

Whether the judge or a jury was the finder of fact, no appeals court would
overturn a guilty plea nor would any sane judge grant a new trial based on
the finder of fact making an egregious error.

That is what the justice system in this country is all about. A vast
majority of Americans believe OJ Simpson killed two people. But no court
would classify the trial as a mistrial granting the prosecution another
chance. The jury disregarded extensive factual evidence and chose to
believe subjective testimony, cheap tricks, etc. in aquitting Simpson. Yet
another jury with much the same evidence and testimony found him
responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown and the waiter and ordered a
huge damage award to the families.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           11-Nov-99 08:58:12
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:01
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <80cu5u$dl1$[e-mail]>, on 11/10/99 at 03:13 PM,
   "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]> 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.

Mr. Lemming Mulligan:

The above quote of yours is unsubstantiated opinion. 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)

One possible explanation is that other operating systems cost more and
people went with the cheapest. This is entirely plausible.

Another possible explanation is that MicroSoft used its economic muscle to
force manufacturers of Personal Computers to load only MS-DOS and Windows
on every machine it sold or face horrible consequences in the form of
exhorbitant license fees for those machines it sold with DOS/Windows. This
was demonstrated by the testimony to be the real reason.

The testimony of machine manufacturers clearly demonstrated that those
companies which did not sign a per processor agreement with MS paid
several time more for DOS/Windows than those who did. In an industry where
the profit per machine is on the order of $15 or so, an extra $40 for the
operating system is prohibitive. It is also illegal.

As precedent, I can cite the cases involving certain pharmaceutical
companies which had two tier pricing entirely analogous to the MS/OEM
situation. The trial court ruled the actions illegal and was upheld by the
Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           11-Nov-99 09:08:18
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:01
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <u2eW3.6856$[e-mail]>, on 11/10/99 at 01:03 PM,
   "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> 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.

The minor differences between what certain keys do is not unlike the
various ways of setting the parking brake on a car. On one of my cars, I
step on a little pedal on the left to set it and again to release it (My
late mother's 1988 Olds). On another, I step to set it and pull a handle
to release it.(My wife's Sable) On another I step on a pedal to set it and
shift into Drive or Reverse to release it. (My daughter's 66 T-Bird) On
yet another I pull a handle in the console (My Cirrus). On yet another I
pull a handle beneath the dashboard. (My 65 Mustang I am restoring).

On some of my cars, the gear shifter is on the steering column. In one it
is on the floor. In some it is in the console. I have had cars with
pushbuttons to shift in the steering column (my unfortunate Edsel). On two
I had pushbuttons on the dashboard (a 58 Plymouth and a 61 Rambler).

I fly airplanes, have for 40+ years. Most planes have a yoke, a
combination of a steering wheel type device which controls roll and moves
forward and back to raise or lower airspeed by controlling the pitch angle
of the machine. Some, however, have a stick on the floor which controls
roll and pitch. A few have a joystick to do the same functions.

I have owned power boats. Some had the wheel on the right, some in the
center, some on the left. Some had throttles and gear shift levers. Some
had a single control to control both engine speed and propeller rotation
direction.

By your infantile logic, boats and airplanes are bad things because they
aren't all exactly alike. By your tortured reasoning, only idiots would
buy other than your concept of what a boat or plane should be.

And it is not just for the pros you refer to in your assinine posting.
When it comes to cars, what the pros drive is entirely different than what
the masses drive. For example, in F1 (Formula 1 in international open
wheel road racing) drivers have a four, five, six, or even seven speed
manual transmission. But they don't have a clutch pedal to worry about.
Nor do they just mash a gas pedal to control engine speed. They also must
control fuel/air mixture, ignition timing, blower ratio, etc.

The masses have done just fine using various operating systems over the
nearly 30 year life cycle of Personal Computers. There once were several
choices beside the PC or the Apple. Commodore, Radio Shack, and Amiga
immediately come to mind. Each had its own operating system which differed
from the others. Each had its own file system. Each had its share of
programs for number crunching, word processing, etc.

Try again.




--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                                       11-Nov-99 15:11:15
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:01
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Illya Vaes <[e-mail]>

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.

>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).
You're saying that a drugs cartel shouldn't be taken out of business because
it makes a lot of people lose their income... 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.

>>>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 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).

>>The judicial system != government in any modern society (it would be in an
>>MS society).
>Did you miss the discussion in grade school

Oh goody goody, a good old personal attack.
Are you sure you wanted to lower your esteem that way?

>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).

>>>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...

>>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
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.

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"...

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.

--
Illya Vaes   ([e-mail])        "Do...or do not, there is no 'try'" - Yoda
Holland Railconsult BV, Integral Management of Railprocess Systems
Postbus 2855, 3500 GW Utrecht
Tel [phone], Fax [phone]           Not speaking for anyone but myself

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

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

From: [e-mail]                           11-Nov-99 09:39:22
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:01
Subj: Re: Definitive proof IBM can't sell even squirrel contraceptives anymor

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <80d61s$[e-mail]>, on 11/10/99 at 07:26 PM,
   "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]> said:

> IBM is still at fault, IMHO, for the events taken place between 1980 and
> 1999 and beyond.  Period.  Understand that much and you'll be
> enlightened that much more.

Ah, yes, the rape victim is at fault. Never saw that defense work in 50
years of court watching.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                                  11-Nov-99 14:48:22
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:01
Subj: Re: Microsoft findings on CDROM

From: [e-mail]

In <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Buddy Donnelly) writes:
>On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:20:23, [e-mail] a crit dans un message:
>
>snipt
>>
>> I have not yet linked to the home page. It is at
>> http://www.quietvision.com/download/sample.zip
>
>Is this available now? I'm getting a server intercept on that URL.
>
Our mistake, are ISV is Sun Unix and Sample.zip is not the same as
sample.zip. It was fixed last night. Use lower case.

>> >I'm curious about printing, 'cause I don't see it mentioned. Do I have to
>> >read these books on the screen, only?
>> >
>
>Hm. I'm not current on that type of restriction on printing public domain
>stuff. The act of publishing, legally, is to simply show it to one other
>person, not to also facilitate further showings. (Though I'm not a lawyer,
>I know someone who has played one on teevee.)
>
To use an exisiting copyright, I sign contracts with authors, artist,
etc. Under the 1998 (Sonny Bono) Copyright act. everything is copyrighted
even if if a copyright is not claimed or filed. Authors and their agents
prefer no ability in the software to mass print the book. However a
print screen is fair use under the law. The law is still grey in this
area, so I stay to the side that does not upset authors and agents.

The important thing is presenting a single common interface for all books
so the PD's do not have a print feature even though there is no legal
restrictions.

"Peter Pan" is one example of were I would (I have not done it yet),
respect the author's wishes even though it is PD. Barrie left the
rights to a children's hospital in England. I have a moral if not
legal obligation (in the US) to pay royalties on this book. There are
many more examples of this kind of activity in publishing.

>
>But you've made a good start, especially with the Tom Swift stuff. I wasn't
>aware the copyright had lapsed on that.
>
On the original Tom Swift Series (the Stratmeyer Syndicate series), The
first 26 are PD. The other 12 (or 14 depending on how you look at 39 and
40) are under copyright till 2019. I am working to obtain the rights
to 27 through 38)


[e-mail]
<A HREF="http://www.quietvision.com">www.quietvision.com</A>
Home of the Electronic Paperback (R)

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 15:25:28
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:02
Subj: difference between OS/2 warp server and OS/2 warp 4..

From: [e-mail] (Christopher)

hai:

    i really need some explanation here.
    to all the OS/2 user out there, could anyone tell me that what
is the difference between OS/2 Warp server and OS/2 Warp 4?

    i am thinking of using OS/2 Warp 4 but what i have got from my
uncle is OS/2 Warp server. are they the same and if it's not, what's
the difference between those?

    the answer is needed in urgent. thanks in advance for your
answer. please reply to my mail box:

    [e-mail].

thanks again.

christ.
Malaysia.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            11-Nov-99 08:00:20
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:02
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: "Don Young" <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 04:55:53 GMT, [e-mail] wrote:

>In article <[e-mail]>,
>  David H. McCoy <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> How many programs can be run with Odin?
>
>n programs, where n is:
>
>0 < n >= (total number of Win32 Apps)
>

I think you meant:

0 < n <= (total number of Win32 Apps)


----------------------------------------------------------------
Don Young   donyoung AT ccsi.com    All opinions above are mine,
http://www.ccsi.com/~donyoung/           and you can't have 'em.
----------------------------------------------------------------
We only use a third of our brain to think with.  The question
is: what do we do with the other third?
----------------------------------------------------------------



--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: None (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          11-Nov-99 15:20:17
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:02
Subj: Re: Microsoft findings on CDROM

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Stephenson)

In article <80el0d$m1$[e-mail]> [e-mail]  writes:

> "Peter Pan" is one example of were I would (I have not done it
> yet), respect the author's wishes even though it is PD. Barrie
> left the rights to a children's hospital in England. I have a
> moral if not legal obligation (in the US) to pay royalties on
> this book. There are many more examples of this kind of
> activity in publishing.

This is an excellent attitude.  The hospital in question, FWIW,
is the Great Ormond Street Hospital For Sick Children, in London.
(That parses as <<<GOS>H>FSC>, BTW -- the name can be confusing.)
They treat children from all over the world, although naturally
most (AFAIK) are from the UK.  Much was made of the connection of
book (actually, originally play) and hospital in Spielberg's 1991
(?) film of a latter-day Peter Pan.
--
Andrew Stephenson

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          11-Nov-99 15:29:27
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:02
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Andrew Stephenson)

In article <yHQxxE9f8dqd-pn2-ItYN5TbBNuyu@POBLANO>
       [e-mail] "Stan Goodman" writes:

> [...]  What is less clear is how Microsoft, having fled to
> Canada to avoid US antitrust action, would survive with the US
> market denied to it. [...]

If M$ became Canadian, wouldn't their manners need to improve?
Hey, that would _have_ to sting a bit.

More seriously, I long ago concluded -- so call me a Clever Clogs
if history ever proves me right -- that, were M$ to leave the US,
it would be go somewhere like India.  Distance is not the problem
it used to be; and India, as (eg) IBM already demonstrates, has a
strong intellectual infrastructure accustomed to handling complex
software projects.  (Sorry, Canada.)

I wonder if Rajah Billy likes spicy food?
--
Andrew Stephenson

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

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

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          11-Nov-99 10:49:29
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:02
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, John Hong said :

> Hobbyist (alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net) wrote:
> : On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, John Hong posted :
>
> : > Hobbyist (alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net) wrote:
> : >
> : > : > The post -COULD- have been credible right up till the end, when he
> : > : > gave himself away by practically begging the rest of us OS/2 users
to
> : > : > switch to Windows.
> : >
> : > : What's so incredible about that?
> : >
> : >     Please, please drop OS/2...I have, so everyone else must!  Yeah,
> : > sure, whatever.
>
> : He did not say that!!!
>
>     Excuse me, but what post were you reading?  He said OS/2 was
> dead, so move on.  Therefore it is quite possible if not probable to
> interpret that as what I had stated earlier.

He said:

     the OS is dead

     get with the times OS/2-ers

     Leave OS/2

     Its not that bad over-here in NT land.

He didn't say, "please, please drop OS/2". That implies that he's
begging and pleading which he was not; and if he were, it would indeed
be ridiculous.

Don't read too much in order to make yourself look good. It makes you
look silly in the end.

--
-=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: [e-mail]                             11-Nov-99 15:43:01
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <80d658$qtc$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:

> > Here are two examples of invective from your "tests":
>
> > "Yet more evidence that you're playing your own 'infantile game'.."
>
> That's another rather blatant lie, Lucien.

No, it is the truth.

> That line does not appear
> in either simple test.

You said it, nonetheless. It is mere invective, designed only to divert
attention away from the topic at hand.

> > and
> >
> > "...Or are you really that idiotic?"
>
> That's another rather blatant lie, Lucien.

No, it is the truth.

> That line does not appear
> in either simple test.

You said it, nonetheless. It is mere invective, designed only to divert
attention away from the topic at hand.

> > Apparently it won't mitigate your reading comprehension problem.
>
> What alleged "reading comprehension problem", Lucien?

Your repeated requests for clarification of my usage of the term "multi-
level" indicates a reading comprehension problem, given that my meaning
is clear.

> I can't read what
> isn't there to be read.

That you cannot comprehend my statements is obvious, yes.

> >>> Nonetheless, let's try again.
>
> >> Let's try again to get you to understand the flaws in your
argument.
>
> > You've demonstrated no flaws in it;
>
> On the contrary, I have.

On the contrary, you have not. You've merely presented irrelevancies
and childish invective in an embarrassed, frustrated attempt to divert
attention away from the topic at hand.

Let's review the topic:

Here is your statement regarding the JDK sentence:

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

Note the description of an underlying ambiguity WRT quantification;
note also your correct contention that it occurs in the absence of
"other information"

Here is my thesis statement again:

The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
ambiguous WRT quantification in the absence of peri-verbal information.

Note the description of an underlying ambiguity WRT quantification;
note also the correct contention that it occurs in the absence of peri-
verbal information, AKA "other information"

Note also that your witless repetitions upon the point of absence of
information only reinforce the veracity of these statements with regard
to the ambiguity.

Finally, note the agreement between the two statements.

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: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          11-Nov-99 10:50:07
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:02
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, John Hong said :

> Hobbyist (alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net) wrote:
>
> : >     Please, please drop OS/2...I have, so everyone else must!  Yeah,
> : > sure, whatever.
>
> : He did not say that!!!
>
> : But of course, the typical warped mentality and interpretation of
> : views negative for OS/2 sets in. Pun intended.
>
>     Here is a quote from the last part of the original message, you
> can check DejaNews if you wish:
>
> > the OS is dead get with the times OS/2-ers
> >              Leave OS/2
> >                                Its not that bad over-here in NT land.
>
>     Either you missed this or you simply didn't read the entire
> message.  Eitherway, the intent of the post is pretty clear.

I already answered.

He is giving advice. He's not begging and pleading with anyone as
you're implying with your addition of "please, please ...." Just those
two words make a big difference to the message. Can't you see that?

English, English. Interesting language.

--
-=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: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          11-Nov-99 10:56:28
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:02
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, John Hong said :

> Hobbyist (alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net) wrote:
>
> : actually, a response to a cross-post. Funny, when an OS/2 advocate
> : defends his choice it's rare for him to be called an IBM salesman.
>
>     Trust me, that is the *last* thing an OS/2 user wants to be nowadays.
>
> :-)

I advocate NT, the operating system, but certainly not MS the company.

:)

Too many assume that since you use a Windows OS, that you are in
cahoots with MS. That's crazy!

--
-=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: [e-mail]...               11-Nov-99 11:24:29
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:02
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

Message sender: [e-mail]

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:znu-1011991921580001@192.168.0.2...
> > > In article <[e-mail]>, "Drestin Black"
> > > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > > > news:znu-1011991606230001@192.168.0.2...
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > >Findings of fact are generally
> > > > > not overturned.
> > > >
> > > > True. I was refering to his previous MS related rulings, both were
> > > > overturned.
> > >
> > > You implied that these findings of fact would suffer the same fate.
> > I did not imply this. I am saying I think his final verdict will be
> > overturned. I think his findings of fact is weak.
>
> "Weak"?
>
> An appeals is not allowed to judge the weakness or strength of a finding
> of fact since not other judge was there at the time of discoverly.  Only
> the trial judge is there and only he can judge the credibility of a
> witness.
>
> Judges are not dumb.
You have not spent much time in litigation or read many rulings have you?

>The know how to find fact in such a way as to
> "stack the decks" and write a finding of fact that will withstand an
> appeal of the law.
I'd prefer a judge  that present facts as simple facts instead of trying to
stack the deck and prevent his ego from being bruised as his reordered
presentation of his version of "facts" is analyzed and errors exposed and
hopefully corrected.



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

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

From: [e-mail]...               11-Nov-99 11:33:05
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 14:39:02
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

Message sender: [e-mail]

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
> Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > Joe Ragosta <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:[e-mail]...
> > > In article <znu-1011991606230001@192.168.0.2>, [e-mail] (ZnU)
> > wrote:
>
> > > > Please learn something about the legal system. There were no
findings of
> > > > fact in either of the earlier two cases. Findings of fact are
generally
> > > > not overturned. Whatever he decides to do to MS might get over
turned,
> > but
> > > > the facts set down in the document released Friday will almost
certainly
> > > > be accepted as truth in all appeals.
> > >
> > > The interesting thing is that the way he laid out the Findings of
Fact,
> > > it's hard to imagine any grounds for overturning his eventual
judgement.
> > >
> >
> > You must learn to try harder. Not give up so easily.
>
> Amen brother.  We just need to understand how to ammend the US
> Constitution to allow a court of appeals to over turn the findings of
> fact in a case.
Unnecessary and I suspect you know this.
>
>
> > > If you accept the Findings of Fact (which the appeals court pretty
much
> > > has to do), the verdict is pretty self-evident.
> >
> > Gee, guess we can just skip the rest of the legal system eh?
>
> No.  We just need to know that a case is appealed on the findings of
> law, not on overturning the findings of fact.
I know that and so do you. When i wrote" You must learn to try harder" I was
refereing to your statement "it's hard to imagine any grounds for
overturning his *eventual judgement*" (emphasis mine). I'm saying try harder
to imagine grounds for overturning his eventual judgement. I didn't say
overturning his findings of fact.
>
> We would NOT want to skip the leagal system - just encourage some
> advocates to recognize Judge Jackson and only Judge Jackson was
> entrusted to find fact.
>
> He is no dummy. He knows the case will be appealed and so his finding of
> law will be based on a mountain of fact favorable to the DOJ and States.
Judges CAN be dummys when the topic is not one they are well versed in. Many
judges are computer illiterate. I'm sure this judge fought his way up the
learning curve quite quickly. I some time ago had a copyright case in front
of a federal judge that went on for over 9 months. Let me tell you a fact.
This judge had NO knowledge fo computers and software. None, zero, zip.
Punchcards he'd heard of. And THIS judge was the one listening to arguments
over software development, code, executables vs object code vs source code.
I mean, his eyes glazed over, he knew NOTHING about computers. Yet, HE made
a judgement and ruling. Don't presume that judges know everything about
everything, obviously they do not and these gaps don't stop them from
changing your life or that of your company. I was lucky, he ruled in our
favor big time, but considering how stupid some of statements were (yes,
stupid, as in, a 1 year computer student would be smarter) it's amazing how
we won as we had to argue on some rather technical issues. I think it was
the short skirts our chief litigator prefered :)



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

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

From: [e-mail]                     11-Nov-99 18:59:21
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]>,
  "Don Young" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I think you meant:
>
> 0 < n <= (total number of Win32 Apps)

Oops. Less than, greater than... Who's counting? ;)

--
-Steven Hunter                *OS/2 Warp 4 * |
[e-mail] *AMD K6-2 400* |


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: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 20:09:11
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <[e-mail]>

Marty wrote:
>
> Below, Dave tries to convince Curtis to take up his ways and discuss
something
> he knows nothing about.  Most people feel (rightfully so) that if they have
no
> knowledge of something that they aren't qualified to discuss it.  This never
> stopped Dave, however.
>
> Dave Tholen wrote:
> >
> > Curtis Bass writes:
> > > I haven't commented on whether Java 1.1.8 actually does implement
> > > Java 1.2 functionality,
> >
> > Thereby avoiding the issue, so that you can concentrate on a
> > diversion.
> >
> > > beyond my observation regarding the statement itself, because I
> > > am admittedly ignorant in that area.
> >
> > Try reading the evidence provided, Curtis.
> >
> > ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
> > ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security
> > ] classes, Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's
> > ] implementation of the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.

Yes, indeed. Even my up front admission of ignorance isn't enough for
our friend Tholen.  I mean, how "logical" is it to argue about something
of which you have minimal knowledge?

It's funny that Dave refers to his four quoted lines above as "the"
evidence, especially considering that it's out of date (note the use of
"will include" as opposed to "includes," which suggests that the above
sales pitch is discussing something that didn't exist at the time of its
being written).  If you go to Software Choice ***TODAY*** . . .

http://techsupport.services.ibm.com/asd-bin/doc/en_us/java/f-feat.htm

 . . . you will note that the first feature listed is "Security
enhancements based on the Java 2 Security model."

That is the only reference to "Java 2" that *I* could find on that
page.  And I sure as hell ***AIN'T*** gonna argue that "Security
enhancements based on the Java 2 Security model" represents
"implement[ing] Java 1.2 funtionality," because there is just too damned
much ambiguity all around.

So, even if I took Dave's advice, I would still realize that my
ignorance overshadows my knowledge in this area, and stay away from that
aspect of the discussion.


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Organized? ME?!!? (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                    11-Nov-99 11:01:26
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (David Kurtz)

In article <80dnen$rk4$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> > Ha! What parts of the document to you object to?
> >
>
> Quite a bit.


I believe this was an invitation to to perform some critical analysis of
specific portions of the text, rather than to continue your vague
hand-waving.

*Specifically* which portions of the document do you disagree with, and why?

--
David Kurtz      : Shred the serious bandwidth.
                 : -- Robert McNally, "Tablespoons"
PGP Key and more : http://www.lightside.net/~david/

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Independent sentient carbon-based unit (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                  11-Nov-99 18:31:04
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Stan Goodman)

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:29:55, [e-mail] (Andrew Stephenson)
wrote:

> In article <yHQxxE9f8dqd-pn2-ItYN5TbBNuyu@POBLANO>
>        [e-mail] "Stan Goodman" writes:
>
> > [...]  What is less clear is how Microsoft, having fled to
> > Canada to avoid US antitrust action, would survive with the US
> > market denied to it. [...]
>
> If M$ became Canadian, wouldn't their manners need to improve?
> Hey, that would _have_ to sting a bit.

They will have to improve in any case. That's what the DOJ and Sun suits
are all about.

> More seriously, I long ago concluded -- so call me a Clever Clogs
> if history ever proves me right -- that, were M$ to leave the US,
> it would be go somewhere like India.  Distance is not the problem
> it used to be; and India, as (eg) IBM already demonstrates, has a
> strong intellectual infrastructure accustomed to handling complex
> software projects.  (Sorry, Canada.)

But it doesn't really matter. Even if he were doing business from an ice
floe, that would not be a license to run an abusive monopoly in the US or
anyplace else, or to contravene the law of any place he would do business.

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

E-mail sent to [e-mail] 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: [e-mail]                                  11-Nov-99 14:18:07
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: Tholen digest, volume 2451494,37572669^-98753

From: "Joe Malloy" <[e-mail]>

Once again, Tholen demonstrated his hypocrisy by wasting more bandwidth
responding to articles.  Of more interest, however, is his lack of a
summary, memory, and anything else to do.  Despite the fact that my initial
counterpoint was to a mistake made by Tholen in 1993, and the fact that I
was able to summarize my point without reference to personalities (after
all, Tholen hardly has one), Tholen tried to explain his lack of a summary
with about as much success as he usually has.  What a cop out!  Meanwhile,
he still hasn't figured out the difference between two simple tests and the
text of the article that contained them.  He's also resorting to more lies,
claiming, for example, that he's posting to "correct misinformation" and not
for entertainment.  If he isn't doing it for his own entertainment, well, at
least no one gets any joy out of him.   Amazing how USENET can corrupt
someone like that.  Here's today's digest of his six postings with all
relevant information posted by Tholen highlighted:

{What's this?  Oh, nothing!}

There you have it!



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

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

From: [e-mail]               11-Nov-99 19:25:01
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] ()

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.

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

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

From: [e-mail]               11-Nov-99 19:30:10
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] ()

On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 21:12:28 -0500, Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>OS/2 runs very well on hardware MS wouldn't even list a base for NT / W2K.
>W2K is due Feb 2000 and is a 128MB, P300 class OS.

Like how MS said windoze 3.0 only needed a 8 mhz 80386sx and 1M ram
  It really needed at last a 33mhz 80386dx and 2-4Mram

or how MS said windoze 3.1 only needed a 33mhz 386dx w/ 2M ram
  It really needed a 33mhz 486 and 4-8Mram

or how MS said windoze 95 only needed a 33mhz 486dx w/ 8M ram
  It really needed a 120mhz pentium and 32M ram

or how MS said windoze NT only needed a 90mhz pentium w/ 16M ram
  It really needs a 200mhz pentium and 64Mram

Windoze 98 chokes w/ 64M ram and needs a 300mhz PII and 128Mram.

MS has *always* been of by at least a factor of two when recomending
hardware.   They'd rather lie than tell people that they'll need $1000
(and what that'll buy currently) to upgrade.

<flashback:  the vax11-780 at school ran 60 students in 8Mram and a
2mhz processor)

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 20:36:01
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:

-- snip --

> > No, I blame you for using your "burned out light bulb" in an attempt to
> > refute someone else's truthful claim that they could get their light
> > working using a different method.
>
> Illogical, given that there was no evidence that the light bulb was
> burned out, Curtis.  I see you also have the ability to stretch an
> analogy beyond the point of applicability.

Uh-huh. I use *YOUR* analogy to illustrate my point, and that becomes
"stretch[ing the] analogy beyond the point of applicability." I guess
your analogies only apply so far as they "illustrate" your "points."

Like I have said, the fact that you received error messages from InfoZip
(presumably, this is supposed to be analogous to your "burning out your
light bulb" -- I'm confident that you will "correct" me if I am
"wrong.") is not the issue as far as I am concerned. The issue, as far
as I am concerned, is that you posted those error messages as evidence
to counter Mike's claim (which happened to be a correct and true claim),
and you did so without verifying the validity of said evidence. (That is
analogous to "using your 'burned out light bulb' in an attempt to refute
someone else's truthful claim that they could get their light working
using a different method," whether you like it or not).  Had you taken
proper steps to verify your evidence, the flawed nature of said evidence
would have manifested itself.

-- snip --


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Organized? ME?!!? (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 19:48:29
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <[e-mail]>

Bennie Nelson wrote:

-- snip --

> I note here that only Dave Tholen has taken the time to respond to the
> request.

By now, you have seen that I did respond.

Please note that only Dave Tholen took the liberty of "correcting"
someone else's summary (namely, mine).


Curtis

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Organized? ME?!!? (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                            11-Nov-99 10:50:17
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 16:48:03
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: josco <[e-mail]>

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Drestin Black wrote:

>
> Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
> > Drestin Black wrote:

> > >
> > > You must learn to try harder. Not give up so easily.
> >
> > Amen brother.  We just need to understand how to ammend the US
> > Constitution to allow a court of appeals to over turn the findings of
> > fact in a case.
> Unnecessary and I suspect you know this.

I KNOW that some MS advocates are plain nuts when they suggest the finding
of fact can be invalidated or over turned.  Any hope indicates cultish
behavior.


> > > > If you accept the Findings of Fact (which the appeals court pretty
> much
> > > > has to do), the verdict is pretty self-evident.
> > >
> > > Gee, guess we can just skip the rest of the legal system eh?
> >
> > No.  We just need to know that a case is appealed on the findings of
> > law, not on overturning the findings of fact.

> I know that and so do you. When i wrote" You must learn to try harder" I was
> refereing to your statement "it's hard to imagine any grounds for
> overturning his *eventual judgement*" (emphasis mine). I'm saying try harder
> to imagine grounds for overturning his eventual judgement. I didn't say
> overturning his findings of fact.

It is very very very hard to imagine any way that one can over turn his
findings of fact.  It is so hard to imagine that not one pro or con MS or
DOJ anti-trust expert has suggest it is possible.


> > He is no dummy. He knows the case will be appealed and so his finding of
> > law will be based on a mountain of fact favorable to the DOJ and States.

> Judges CAN be dummys when the topic is not one they are well versed in.

The topic is law, not computers.  The topic is the legal document, the
finding of fact.  It is a document about the MARKET for computer borwsers
and monopoly, not a patent dispute.

> Many
> judges are computer illiterate. I'm sure this judge fought his way up the
> learning curve quite quickly. I some time ago had a copyright case in front
> of a federal judge that went on for over 9 months. Let me tell you a fact.
> This judge had NO knowledge fo computers and software. None, zero, zip.
> Punchcards he'd heard of. And THIS judge was the one listening to arguments
> over software development, code, executables vs object code vs source code.

[....I'm trying to understand and accept that you're not full of BS]

> I mean, his eyes glazed over, he knew NOTHING about computers. Yet, HE made
> a judgement and ruling. Don't presume that judges know everything about
> everything, obviously they do not and these gaps don't stop them from
> changing your life or that of your company. I was lucky, he ruled in our
> favor big time, but considering how stupid some of statements were (yes,
> stupid, as in, a 1 year computer student would be smarter) it's amazing how
> we won as we had to argue on some rather technical issues. I think it was
> the short skirts our chief litigator prefered :)

What a stupidly Sexist thing to say.

None expects ANY Judge to know all or even a majority of the technical
aspects of a case even in a patent dispute (which this case is not -- it
is an anti-trust case).  A technically based criticism of Judge Jackson,
or any Judge, is NOT the kind of criticism someone with your supposed
experience and knowledge should use to argue against him.  As you now, the
many LEGAL experts commenting on the case have NOT made this argument --
that his finding of fact was wrong.
PERIOD.

I have close friends who are patent lawyers and their war stories focus
around litigants who lose when they lose credibility with the Judge and or
make conflicting arguments.  This MS case was one about anti-trust law and
markets, not about patents and technology.


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

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

From: [e-mail]               11-Nov-99 19:25:23
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 19:59:16
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] ()

On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 21:26:06 -0500, Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>"Vincent P. LaBella" wrote:
>
>> On 10 Nov 1999, Dave Tholen wrote:
>>
>> > Vincent P. LaBella writes:
>> >
>> > > Soon there will we wrist-watches that surf the web.  What are we
>> > > going to do?  Try and put OS/2 on those wrist-watches?
>> > >
>> > > get real.
>> >
>> > Are you going to try and put Windows 2000 on those wrist watches?
>> >
>> > get real
>> >
>> what is windows 2000?
>
>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.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                          11-Nov-99 21:25:21
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 19:59:16
Subj: does anybody actually use OS/2, and why??

From: [e-mail] (Joar)

I actually wonder about this.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerTech, [phone] (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 15:31:11
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 19:59:16
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

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.

> >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.

> 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.

> >>>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.  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.

> >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 judicial system != government in any modern society (it would be in an
> >>MS society).
> >Did you miss the discussion in grade school
>
> Oh goody goody, a good old personal attack.

No personal attack intended.  Your comment caught me off-guard as
something anyone should realize.

> Are you sure you wanted to lower your esteem that way?

No need to worry.

> >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.

> >>>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.

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

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Global Services North -- Burlington, Vermont,
(1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                  11-Nov-99 21:41:24
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 19:59:16
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: [e-mail] (void)

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty wrote:
>Illya Vaes wrote:
>>
>> 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.

The fate of low-level employees at Microsoft will not be considered by
the court, nor should it.

If the government's theory is correct, then ending Microsoft's
monopolistic practices will benefit the health of the software industry,
and any workers who might get laid off by Microsoft can get jobs at the
startups who will now be able to compete.

But really, it's quite irrelevant to the court case.

>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?

I don't know where you got this idea that the rank and file at Microsoft
are going to suffer if a harsh judgment is handed down, but as I said,
such considerations are almost certainly outside the scope of the court's
investigation.  It is not that the MS rank and file "should be punished" or
"shouldn't be punished" but simply that they will not be considered at all.

It is extremely unlikely that any court will shut down MS entirely.
Nothing short of that is likely to have much negative effect on the average
MS employee.

>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.

Microsoft has used their vast resources to harm other companies and to
harm the market in general.  I don't see any problem with forcibly
rededicating some of those resources to repairing the damage.  That's
what happens when a company breaks the law and gets caught and defends
itself poorly.

>> 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
>applying laws to Microsoft demonstrates that the government had no
>problem with what MS was doing in the past.

Things move slowly in the court system.  It takes time to prepare a
case, and more time to actually make the wheels move and justice happen.
Understand that the case is being pursued by the Department of Justice,
in Federal court.  The judge, after examining the evidence presented by
the DoJ and by Microsoft, made the finding of fact -- these facts are
the official reality, according to the law.  The process is modular:
fact-finding is procedurally separate from acting on the basis of those
facts.  Furthermore, it is the *courts* that must act on the facts, not
the DoJ.

In other words, you're not making an ounce of sense, because you don't
understand the way the system works.

>> 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 law is older than Microsoft is.  Next!

>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 should know that many, many MS employees are paid in stock to a
significant degree, and that both Standard Oil and AT&T became *more*
valuable when they were broken up.

>> 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.

Personally, I think you've drawn some totally harebrained conclusions on
the basis of no research at all, and now you're on a rhetorical campaign
on the basis of those conclusions, and the sooner you stop and
re-examine said conclusions, the fewer words you'll end up eating.

--
 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: [e-mail]                    11-Nov-99 22:39:17
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 19:59:16
Subj: Re: does anybody actually use OS/2, and why??

From: [e-mail] (John Hong)

Joar ([e-mail]) wrote:
: I actually wonder about this.

    If you have a bank card than 9 chances out of 10 you probably
have used OS/2...


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 17:45:16
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 19:59:16
Subj: Re: does anybody actually use OS/2, and why??

From: Carl Kaufmann <[e-mail]>

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.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: The Soulless Minions of Orthodoxy (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                    11-Nov-99 22:41:01
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 19:59:16
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (John Hong)

Hobbyist (alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net) wrote:

: He said:

:      the OS is dead

:      get with the times OS/2-ers

:      Leave OS/2

:      Its not that bad over-here in NT land.

: He didn't say, "please, please drop OS/2". That implies that he's
: begging and pleading which he was not; and if he were, it would indeed
: be ridiculous.

: Don't read too much in order to make yourself look good. It makes you
: look silly in the end.

    Yeah, sure, whatever Ali.  Like we haven't already heard this
"advice" enough.  I guess we just have to be reminded about NT, again,
and again, and again.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                    11-Nov-99 22:42:11
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 19:59:16
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (John Hong)

Hobbyist (alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net) wrote:

: He is giving advice. He's not begging and pleading with anyone as
: you're implying with your addition of "please, please ...." Just those
: two words make a big difference to the message. Can't you see that?

    The intent was there, just different wording.  Can't you see that?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 15:12:11
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 21:27:03
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>


Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
>
>
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
> > Mark Robinson <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:[e-mail]...
> > > >
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you trying to claim that Mac OS and BeOS are harder to learn
than
> > > > Windows?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > In a word YES.
> > >
> > > How so?
> > >
> >
> > This is a subjective opinion based on more than 10 years teaching
computer
> > use. It is based on what is necessary for the user to learn to begin
being
> > useful and how much about computing the user will learn in the long
term.
> > Windows while not being the quickest for startup will encourage the
users to
> > learn more about computing in general than the Mac.  BeOS being Unix
base
> > cannot make such a claim.
>
> I think what you're backing into is that there are so many problems with a
> Wintel PC that the user is FORCED to do more system adminstration and
> tinkering.  Gartner Group and others call this extra "learning" a cost.
MS is
> trying to lower this cost.  I must admit -- it is very creative to say the
> sysadmin Windows forces on a user is a plus.  That a user learns more and
thus
> is benfits.  Of course  you're not the one paying that person's salary.
>

1. I'm not backing into anything.
2. The user isn't forced to do anything, the better users learn because they
can.
3. Training is a cost regardless of system.


The training curve of three respective systems show Macs to have a shallower
initial curve that peaks at a very low level of knowledge, UNIX has very
steep initial curve that peaks very high, windows splits the difference
while not restricting how much a user can learn.

<trimmed bs>


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


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

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 15:14:00
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 21:27:03
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
>
>
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
> > ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:znu-1111990045140001@192.168.0.2...
> >
>
> >
> > > > Unbiased judge, hmmm, heard months of testimony, in his sleep.
> > >
> > > Cheap shots aren't going to get you anywhere.
> >
> > Except grounds for appeal.
>
> Oh please elaborate.   What legal right was violated ?
>

The right to fair and impartial judgment.

> And I'd love to know how cheap shots are going to have a positive impact
on any
> the appeal.   Do courts encourage disrespectful baiting of Judges?  No
they do
> not.
>
> Judge Jackson allowed MS broad latitude in their examinations so they
cannot
> claim he cut them short.  Boring a Judge to sleep isn't the right of a
> defendant.
>

By limiting cross examination, by sleeping through testimony, by letting the
plaintif write his opinion.. Yeah that's fair.

>


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


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 17:51:02
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 21:27:03
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Curtis Bass wrote:
>
> Marty wrote:
> >
> > Below, Dave tries to convince Curtis to take up his ways and discuss
something
> > he knows nothing about.  Most people feel (rightfully so) that if they
have no
> > knowledge of something that they aren't qualified to discuss it.  This
never
> > stopped Dave, however.
> >
> > Dave Tholen wrote:
> > >
> > > Curtis Bass writes:
> > > > I haven't commented on whether Java 1.1.8 actually does implement
> > > > Java 1.2 functionality,
> > >
> > > Thereby avoiding the issue, so that you can concentrate on a
> > > diversion.
> > >
> > > > beyond my observation regarding the statement itself, because I
> > > > am admittedly ignorant in that area.
> > >
> > > Try reading the evidence provided, Curtis.
> > >
> > > ] The IBM OS/2 Warp Developer Kit and Runtime Environment, Java(TM)
> > > ] Technology Edition, Version 1.1.8 will include Java 2 security
> > > ] classes, Remote Method Invocation over IIOP (RMI/IIOP), IBM's
> > > ] implementation of the Java COMM API for OS/2, and Swing.
>
> Yes, indeed. Even my up front admission of ignorance isn't enough for
> our friend Tholen.  I mean, how "logical" is it to argue about something
> of which you have minimal knowledge?
>
> It's funny that Dave refers to his four quoted lines above as "the"
> evidence, especially considering that it's out of date (note the use of
> "will include" as opposed to "includes," which suggests that the above
> sales pitch is discussing something that didn't exist at the time of its
> being written).  If you go to Software Choice ***TODAY*** . . .
>
> http://techsupport.services.ibm.com/asd-bin/doc/en_us/java/f-feat.htm
>
>  . . . you will note that the first feature listed is "Security
> enhancements based on the Java 2 Security model."
>
> That is the only reference to "Java 2" that *I* could find on that
> page.  And I sure as hell ***AIN'T*** gonna argue that "Security
> enhancements based on the Java 2 Security model" represents
> "implement[ing] Java 1.2 funtionality," because there is just too damned
> much ambiguity all around.
>
> So, even if I took Dave's advice, I would still realize that my
> ignorance overshadows my knowledge in this area, and stay away from that
> aspect of the discussion.

This is precisely the difference (or actually one of many) between reasonable
people and Dave.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 15:28:08
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 21:27:03
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

josco <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Drestin Black wrote:
>
> >
> > Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
> > > Drestin Black wrote:
>
> > > >
> > > > You must learn to try harder. Not give up so easily.
> > >
> > > Amen brother.  We just need to understand how to ammend the US
> > > Constitution to allow a court of appeals to over turn the findings of
> > > fact in a case.
> > Unnecessary and I suspect you know this.
>
> I KNOW that some MS advocates are plain nuts when they suggest the finding
> of fact can be invalidated or over turned.  Any hope indicates cultish
> behavior.
>

Findings of any type are subject to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.
Findings of Fact aren't edicts from Linus^H^H^H^H^HGOD and are subject to
human failings.

>
<trimmed>
>
> > I mean, his eyes glazed over, he knew NOTHING about computers. Yet, HE
made
> > a judgement and ruling. Don't presume that judges know everything about
> > everything, obviously they do not and these gaps don't stop them from
> > changing your life or that of your company. I was lucky, he ruled in our
> > favor big time, but considering how stupid some of statements were (yes,
> > stupid, as in, a 1 year computer student would be smarter) it's amazing
how
> > we won as we had to argue on some rather technical issues. I think it
was
> > the short skirts our chief litigator prefered :)
>
> What a stupidly Sexist thing to say.
>

Could be true too.

> None expects ANY Judge to know all or even a majority of the technical
> aspects of a case even in a patent dispute (which this case is not -- it
> is an anti-trust case).  A technically based criticism of Judge Jackson,
> or any Judge, is NOT the kind of criticism someone with your supposed
> experience and knowledge should use to argue against him.  As you now, the
> many LEGAL experts commenting on the case have NOT made this argument --
> that his finding of fact was wrong.
> PERIOD.
>
> I have close friends who are patent lawyers and their war stories focus
> around litigants who lose when they lose credibility with the Judge and or
> make conflicting arguments.  This MS case was one about anti-trust law and
> markets, not about patents and technology.
>
>


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


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

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 15:29:21
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 21:27:03
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>


David Kurtz <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> In article <80dnen$rk4$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > > Ha! What parts of the document to you object to?
> > >
> >
> > Quite a bit.
>
>
> I believe this was an invitation to to perform some critical analysis of
> specific portions of the text, rather than to continue your vague
> hand-waving.
>
> *Specifically* which portions of the document do you disagree with, and
why?
>

Pages 1 -417, because they show a bias in the part of the ruling party.

> --
> David Kurtz      : Shred the serious bandwidth.
>                  : -- Robert McNally, "Tablespoons"
> PGP Key and more : http://www.lightside.net/~david/


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


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

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 15:46:10
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 21:27:03
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>


<[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> 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.
>

Actually the latest and greatest GNU (if there is such a thing) products are
available on NT.

> 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.
>

You don't have to, if you'd actually ran it instead of ranting about it
you'd know.


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


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                11-Nov-99 22:55:23
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 21:27:03
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (James Himmelman)

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 02:46:53, Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>
wrote:

> > I have been an OS/2 user for many years. If I ever felt the need to
> > move to another platform, I might monitor these groups on occasion to
> > see what's new, but I wouldn't dream of trying to get the rest of you
> > to switch.

> Speak for yourself and not about others especially with respect to
> what you may be inclined to or not to do.

Read it again. I WAS speaking for myself. The giveaway was the use of
the word "I" throughout those sentences. Don't fret though, not
everyone can read and understand English well.

> > He showed his hand in the end.

> You certainly have shown yours as well.

As have you.

> You haven't shown your head though; it's still buried in the sand.

I have Windows installed on this machine. I rarely boot to it though,
because while I can use both OS/2, and Windows on this machine, I
prefer OS/2. I used to use Win3.1, and I tried to warm up to Win95. I
have a fully functional Win95 partition, complete with apps to perform
the tasks that are now handled for me by OS/2. I tried to like it, but
still prefer OS/2.

I don't care for Microsofts tactics, but I am not terribly fond of IBM
either - and I am fully aware that it is IBM that wrote the book on
many of the dirty tactics now employed by MS.

The original post could have simply told a story about why he
switched, and how it has worked out, and left it at that. The fact the
he felt the need to tell US that we should "leave OS/2" shows that the
post was either a fake, or he is an idiot, because how could he
possibly know what would be best for ME. He gave himself away. Just
because you are not bright enough to figure that out, doesn't mean it
isn't true.

It seems that it is your head that is buried. I have both OS's
installed for direct "side by side" comparison on the exact same
hardware. How about you?

> -=Ali M.=-
>
> Mail to: <alliem 'at' wtjam 'dot' net>
>

[[[ James Himmelman - [e-mail] ]]]

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

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

From: sutherda@**ANTI-SPAM**netcomuk.c...               12-Nov-99 00:28:12
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 21:27:03
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

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

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

On 11 Nov 1999 19:25:47 GMT, [e-mail] ()
wrote:

>On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 21:26:06 -0500, Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>"Vincent P. LaBella" wrote:
>>
>>> On 10 Nov 1999, Dave Tholen wrote:
>>>
>>> > Vincent P. LaBella writes:
>>> >
>>> > > Soon there will we wrist-watches that surf the web.  What are we
>>> > > going to do?  Try and put OS/2 on those wrist-watches?
>>> > >
>>> > > get real.
>>> >
>>> > Are you going to try and put Windows 2000 on those wrist watches?
>>> >
>>> > get real
>>> >
>>> what is windows 2000?
>>
>>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....


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: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 19:53:09
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 21:27:03
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Kieran Wheeler <[e-mail]>

Chad Mulligan wrote:

> Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
> >
> >
> > Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > > news:znu-1111990045140001@192.168.0.2...
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > > > Unbiased judge, hmmm, heard months of testimony, in his sleep.
> > > >
> > > > Cheap shots aren't going to get you anywhere.
> > >
> > > Except grounds for appeal.
> >
> > Oh please elaborate.   What legal right was violated ?

> The right to fair and impartial judgment.

The last resort of the losers: whining that the outcome was inevitable because
the judge was "biased." When you have a set of witnesses that run rings around
the truth, try their damnedest to ignore what the judge asks of them and goes
as far as to outrightly lie to the judge (and unconvincingly, at that), you
cannot then say that the judge was "prejudiced" against sweet little innocent
you.

-K
--
You can tell the quality of an artist by the quality of his Bungie.
-- Hobbes

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands,
hoist the black flag, launch Halo, and begin slitting throats.
-- H.L. Mencken


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                11-Nov-99 18:06:04
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 21:27:03
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (Jerry McBride)

In article <[e-mail]>,
"Vincent P. LaBella" <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> this is boring but please read and add flames
>
>Hello
>
>        I was a long time OS/2 user, since 2.0 (pre service pack) and I
>just recently moved to NT.

--- one BIG ugly snip ---

Good bye.


--

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

*            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 |
|         [e-mail]             |
\----------------------------------------/

--

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 20:04:27
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 21:27:03
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Kieran Wheeler <[e-mail]>

Chad Mulligan wrote:

> > *Specifically* which portions of the document do you disagree with, and
> why?
>
> Pages 1 -417, because they show a bias in the part of the ruling party.

There were, um, 207 pages.

-K
--
You can tell the quality of an artist by the quality of his Bungie.
-- Hobbes

Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands,
hoist the black flag, launch Halo, and begin slitting throats.
-- H.L. Mencken


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

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 17:07:13
  To: All                                               11-Nov-99 21:27:03
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Kieran Wheeler <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
> > Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> > >
> > >
> > > Chad Mulligan wrote:
> > >
> > > > ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > > > news:znu-1111990045140001@192.168.0.2...
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Unbiased judge, hmmm, heard months of testimony, in his sleep.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheap shots aren't going to get you anywhere.
> > > >
> > > > Except grounds for appeal.
> > >
> > > Oh please elaborate.   What legal right was violated ?
>
> > The right to fair and impartial judgment.
>
> The last resort of the losers: whining that the outcome was inevitable
because
> the judge was "biased." When you have a set of witnesses that run rings
around
> the truth, try their damnedest to ignore what the judge asks of them and
goes
> as far as to outrightly lie to the judge (and unconvincingly, at that),
you
> cannot then say that the judge was "prejudiced" against sweet little
innocent
> you.
>

The last resort of idiots is to attempt to ridicule a persons considered
opinion.

> -K
> --
> You can tell the quality of an artist by the quality of his Bungie.
> -- Hobbes
>
> Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands,
> hoist the black flag, launch Halo, and begin slitting throats.
> -- H.L. Mencken
>


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

>


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

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

From: [e-mail]                            11-Nov-99 21:12:18
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:01
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <80fglv$ct5$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
says...
>Hobbyist (alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net) wrote:
>
>: He said:
>
>:      the OS is dead
>
>:      get with the times OS/2-ers
>
>:      Leave OS/2
>
>:      Its not that bad over-here in NT land.
>
>: He didn't say, "please, please drop OS/2". That implies that he's
>: begging and pleading which he was not; and if he were, it would indeed
>: be ridiculous.
>
>: Don't read too much in order to make yourself look good. It makes you
>: look silly in the end.
>
>    Yeah, sure, whatever Ali.  Like we haven't already heard this
>"advice" enough.  I guess we just have to be reminded about NT, again,
>and again, and again.
>
>

"Whatever"? Ali presented his evidence quoted straight from the post. YOU
OFFERED NOTHING.

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            11-Nov-99 21:10:21
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:01
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net
says...
>On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, Brad BARCLAY posted :
>
><snip>
>> Doesn't it bother you that you're now poviding monetary support
>> to the company that forced that choice?
>
>It used to bother me a great deal but I've learned to be more
>pragmatic and simply enjoy using the OS that works best for me.
>
>If that's what everyone else did, then we wouldn't be in this
>position.
>
>

Besides, MS did nothing to force my choice but provide an OS that worked
better
for me than OS/2.
--
---------------------------------------
David H. McCoy
dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
---------------------------------------

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            11-Nov-99 21:25:29
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:01
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] 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.

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            11-Nov-99 21:26:25
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:01
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <olorOO2Az4AP=Zkcd8CoIX4=[e-mail]>, sutherda@**ANTI-
SPAM**netcomuk.co.uk says...
>On 11 Nov 1999 19:25:47 GMT, [e-mail] ()
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 09 Nov 1999 21:26:06 -0500, Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>"Vincent P. LaBella" wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10 Nov 1999, Dave Tholen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > Vincent P. LaBella writes:
>>>> >
>>>> > > Soon there will we wrist-watches that surf the web.  What are we
>>>> > > going to do?  Try and put OS/2 on those wrist-watches?
>>>> > >
>>>> > > get real.
>>>> >
>>>> > Are you going to try and put Windows 2000 on those wrist watches?
>>>> >
>>>> > get real
>>>> >
>>>> what is windows 2000?
>>>
>>>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....

That's because facts don't have a place in the new c.o.o.a. Uneducated
statements and outright lying are the new tools.

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

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 11:59:18
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:01
Subj: Re: Definitive proof IBM can't sell even squirrel contraceptives anymor

From: Brad BARCLAY <[e-mail]>

Kelly Robinson wrote:
>
> If IBM's idea of advertising is to promote OS/2's logo (which was stolen
> from that SAMS book, and not even the real logo!) on 50 TV monitor screens
> simulaneously as part of the mad computer guy's main control room in the
> movie "Goldeneye" (a James Bond movie made in 1995, I'll keep the comments
> of the movie to a minimum), then IBM has severe problems when dealing with
> consumer public!

    And who said anything about IBM paying for that, or even encouraging
it?  It wouldn't be the first time that someone involved with movie or
television making put in their own little bit of advocacy for something
they like by giving it a meaningless background camio (watch ST:TNG
sometime.  In Ten-Forward there is a multi-leveled game board with lots
of different sized semispheres in two different colours on it.  It looks
really futuristic - but it's a real game called Terrace, which was
independently published earlier this decade.  The games inventors didn't
approch the Star Trek crew or Paramount to feature their game - one of
the set workers had played it, liked it, and wanted to help promote it
for free).

    Unlike yourself, most advocates do have a real life in the outside
world, and they often bring that advocacy along with them to their
jobs.  In almost every movie and TV show, some business or product gets
some free publicity - often without that products developers/owners
knowledge or permission (and in some cases there have been lawsuits if
the use of the products image hasn't been representitive of what the
company wants ot show.  A few years ago, Hornel Foods brought a lawsuit
against Jim Henson Productions because the movie "Muppet Treasure
Island" had a character in it named "Spa'am").

    So you're making a big assumption that IBM paid anything for a brief
flash of OS/2 logos in a big screen movie.  IBM logos have appeared in
other movies and TV shows over the years (remember "2001: A Space
Odyssey"?) - ubt I doubt tha IBM has paid to have their logo shown on
some product somewhere inthe background each and every time.

    If you care to offer up some proof that IBM paid for a quick OS/2 logo
flash, please feel free to step forward and offer it.  Otherwise, don't
go around claiming it as fact.

Brad BARCLAY

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Posted from the OS/2 WARP v4.5 desktop of Brad BARCLAY.
E-Mail:  [e-mail]        Location:  2G43D@Torolabs

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: IBM Toronto Labs, DB2 for OS/2 Install Developer (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                   12-Nov-99 01:59:19
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:01
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (ZnU)

In article <80fp79$qsn$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Kieran Wheeler <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...

> > The last resort of the losers: whining that the outcome was inevitable
> because
> > the judge was "biased." When you have a set of witnesses that run rings
> around
> > the truth, try their damnedest to ignore what the judge asks of them and
> goes
> > as far as to outrightly lie to the judge (and unconvincingly, at that),
> you
> > cannot then say that the judge was "prejudiced" against sweet little
> innocent
> > you.
> >
>
> The last resort of idiots is to attempt to ridicule a persons considered
> opinion.

You are totally entitled to that opinion. Some of use just though you'd
like to know it was a totally baseless one.

--
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 <[e-mail]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            11-Nov-99 21:09:00
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:01
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>
>Actually the most significant newly supported app is probably WinHlp32.  Once
>it becomes stable, it will assist the Odin developers immensely because
they'll
>be able to view the MS API documentation from within OS/2 easily.  These are
>not, in point of fact, the same apps that were supported a year ago.  There
are
>many more, and many more work better than they would have a year ago.
There's
>certainly nothing to write home about because you can run Notepad, I agree,
but
>to sum up that no progress has been made in about a year is an irresponsible
>statement.
>
>- Marty
>
>

No, it is based on my opinion and my opinion is based on what I'm seeing and
what I'm seeing is not much progress.

If you want to see the MS API, you can do this on a $200 machine.

Sorry you don't agree, but I stand by my statement of not much progress.

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 18:46:22
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:01
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

void <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty wrote:
> >
> >Since you obviously have a superior understanding of the situation and
have
> >drawn better conclusions than I,
>
> Now you're talking.
>
> >why not tell us how fining MS is going right
> >all of the wrongs that were caused.
>
> It wouldn't.  But it would be a start.  First of all, there's the
> intuitive principle that ill-gotten gains should be taken away, so as to
> discourage further abuse.  Second, the money could be used to support
> open systems research, or given to some of the companies Microsoft has
> damaged through their illegal acts, or given back to the consumers they
> took it from -- who are the real focus of these government actions, and
> who will be the real beneficiaries when the software market is freed
> from Microsoft's illegal practices.
>

Figures you guys are looking for a hand out.  What this is becoming is
software socialism.

> I'll respond to the rest of your post in a minute, or perhaps tomorrow.
>
> --
>  Ben
>
> [X] YES! I'm a brain-damaged lemur on crack, and I'd like to
>     order your software package for $459.95!


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



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

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

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          11-Nov-99 21:48:11
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:01
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, John Hong said :

> Hobbyist (alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net) wrote:
>
> : He is giving advice. He's not begging and pleading with anyone as
> : you're implying with your addition of "please, please ...." Just those
> : two words make a big difference to the message. Can't you see that?
>
>     The intent was there, just different wording.  Can't you see that?

Nope. Please, please, please don't try to tell me to imagine things
that aren't there. I take things as I see them.

Yes, the begging and pleading is intended. :)

--
-=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: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 21:14:18
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:01
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

void wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty wrote:
> >Illya Vaes wrote:
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> The fate of low-level employees at Microsoft will not be considered by
> the court, nor should it.
>
> If the government's theory is correct, then ending Microsoft's
> monopolistic practices will benefit the health of the software industry,
> and any workers who might get laid off by Microsoft can get jobs at the
> startups who will now be able to compete.
>
> But really, it's quite irrelevant to the court case.

How is the big picture of the economic impact irrelevant to the court case?

> >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?
>
> I don't know where you got this idea that the rank and file at Microsoft
> are going to suffer if a harsh judgment is handed down, but as I said,
> such considerations are almost certainly outside the scope of the court's
> investigation.  It is not that the MS rank and file "should be punished" or
> "shouldn't be punished" but simply that they will not be considered at all.
>
> It is extremely unlikely that any court will shut down MS entirely.
> Nothing short of that is likely to have much negative effect on the average
> MS employee.

I disagree, but only time will tell.

> >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.
>
> Microsoft has used their vast resources to harm other companies and to
> harm the market in general.  I don't see any problem with forcibly
> rededicating some of those resources to repairing the damage.  That's
> what happens when a company breaks the law and gets caught and defends
> itself poorly.

And how is this damage going to be repaired?  MS losing money is not going to
make these companies that knuckled under suddenly spring back into existence.
It's also not going to cause MS to lose market share.  I can't perceive of how
any damage can be repaired by fining MS.  I can very easily perceive of how it
can cause damage, however.

> >> 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
> >applying laws to Microsoft demonstrates that the government had no
> >problem with what MS was doing in the past.
>
> Things move slowly in the court system.  It takes time to prepare a
> case, and more time to actually make the wheels move and justice happen.
> Understand that the case is being pursued by the Department of Justice,
> in Federal court.  The judge, after examining the evidence presented by
> the DoJ and by Microsoft, made the finding of fact -- these facts are
> the official reality, according to the law.  The process is modular:
> fact-finding is procedurally separate from acting on the basis of those
> facts.  Furthermore, it is the *courts* that must act on the facts, not
> the DoJ.
>
> In other words, you're not making an ounce of sense, because you don't
> understand the way the system works.

I do understand that MS was brought up on similar such charges years ago and
the charges were dismissed.  As a result, MS went ahead with their actions,
rightfully not fearing consequences.  I'm not defending or condoning their
actions, but over the various political landscapes under which these charges
were brought about, the government as a whole has shown ambivalence at best.
It's still the same MS with the same business tactics, but all of a sudden,
it's no longer acceptable.  Should they be punished for this retroactively, or
should they be prevented from causing future damage?

> >> 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 law is older than Microsoft is.  Next!

Although MS has been no stranger to the courtroom, they have yet to be found
guilty of misconduct of this magnitude.  The courts have been validating MS's
actions up to this point.  If there is a law being broken now, it was being
broken then too.

> >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 should know that many, many MS employees are paid in stock to a
> significant degree, and that both Standard Oil and AT&T became *more*
> valuable when they were broken up.

Having a few shares of valuable stock is little solace when you've lost your
job.

> >> 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.
>
> Personally, I think you've drawn some totally harebrained conclusions on
> the basis of no research at all, and now you're on a rhetorical campaign
> on the basis of those conclusions, and the sooner you stop and
> re-examine said conclusions, the fewer words you'll end up eating.

And the sooner you drop that attitude, the better chance you'll have of
convincing me of anything.

Since you obviously have a superior understanding of the situation and have
drawn better conclusions than I, why not tell us how fining MS is going right
all of the wrongs that were caused.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                   12-Nov-99 01:56:15
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (ZnU)

In article <80fjg1$o5l$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> David Kurtz <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> > In article <80dnen$rk4$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > > Ha! What parts of the document to you object to?
> > > >
> > >
> > > Quite a bit.
> >
> >
> > I believe this was an invitation to to perform some critical analysis of
> > specific portions of the text, rather than to continue your vague
> > hand-waving.
> >
> > *Specifically* which portions of the document do you disagree with, and
> why?
> >
>
> Pages 1 -417, because they show a bias in the part of the ruling party.

That's a neat trick, given that there are only 207 pages.

--
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 <[e-mail]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>

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

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

From: larso@commodore.                                  12-Nov-99 03:26:10
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Stan Goodman write:

> But it doesn't really matter. Even if he were doing business from an ice
> floe, that would not be a license to run an abusive monopoly

Somebody's running an abusive monopoly?  Who?

--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                  12-Nov-99 03:29:13
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: [e-mail] (void)

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty wrote:
>void wrote:
>>
>> If the government's theory is correct, then ending Microsoft's
>> monopolistic practices will benefit the health of the software industry,
>> and any workers who might get laid off by Microsoft can get jobs at the
>> startups who will now be able to compete.
>>
>> But really, it's quite irrelevant to the court case.
>
>How is the big picture of the economic impact irrelevant to the court case?

It isn't, and I never said it was.  I said that the court most likely
will not be considering the impact on Microsoft employees when they
render judgment.

So far, your evidence that fining Microsoft would have a "big picture"
economic impact consists of nothing but handwaving, and it's so
unconvincing that even the usual Microsoft apologists aren't jumping
to your aid.  I count two separate unsupported assumptions here: first,
that fining Microsoft would result in layoffs, and second, that layoffs
at Microsoft would have a macroeconomic impact.

Why would MS fire people instead of, I don't know, cutting their
advertising budget, or raising their prices, or cutting their hardware
expenditures, or introducing new products for money instead of giving
them away, or simply taking a loss on their books and trying to make it
back through normal business, since they're allegedly profitable?

And if MS did lay people off, what makes you think they wouldn't be able
to get jobs faster than you could blink?  Are you aware how hot the
technical job market is these days?

Or are you worried about MS laying off unskilled workers?  Perhaps you
could show me what percentage of their budget goes to unskilled workers,
then?  Something tells me that a company like Microsoft doesn't spend a
very large amount on janitorial staff, relative to their other
expenditures.  But please, by all means, prove me wrong.  They're
publically traded; their books are open, and questionable though those
books may be, I can't see why they'd lie about something like that.

>> It is extremely unlikely that any court will shut down MS entirely.
>> Nothing short of that is likely to have much negative effect on the average
>> MS employee.
>
>I disagree, but only time will tell.

Ok, then please explain what you think the courts will do, and how you
think it will harm the rank and file working at MS.  I'd also like to
hear about any similar situations in the past that you can cite.

>> In other words, you're not making an ounce of sense, because you don't
>> understand the way the system works.
>
>I do understand that MS was brought up on similar such charges years ago and
>the charges were dismissed.

What case(s) are you talking about, specifically?  There have been
judgments rendered against Microsoft in the past for their abusive
practices; they have also settled cases.  They have *not* been unscathed
by the legal system.

This is why I'm having a hard time taking you seriously; you appear to
be making up facts out of whole cloth.

>As a result, MS went ahead with their actions, rightfully not fearing
>consequences.

So you feel that if a company is abusing a monopoly position in a way that's
detrimental to consumers and the market, but they've gotten away with it
for some time, more or less, then they should be allowed to continue
indefinitely?

As a legal philosophy, I find that somewhat ... lacking.

>I'm not defending or condoning their
>actions, but over the various political landscapes under which these charges
>were brought about, the government as a whole has shown ambivalence at best.

There is no such thing as "the government as a whole" -- again, you
can't make sense of these issues without understanding the roles of the
different parts of the government.

>It's still the same MS with the same business tactics, but all of a sudden,
>it's no longer acceptable.

It was never acceptable.  The law hasn't changed, and its provisions are
clear.

>Should they be punished for this retroactively, or should they be
>prevented from causing future damage?

I don't know of any kind of punishment that isn't "retroactive", at
least not in a free country.  In this case, it seems appropriate that
Microsoft should suffer consequences for what they've done, and further
remedies should be undertaken to ensure that they don't continue to act
this way, since past remedies have proven ineffective.

>> The law is older than Microsoft is.  Next!
>
>Although MS has been no stranger to the courtroom, they have yet to be found
>guilty of misconduct of this magnitude.

That is true.

>The courts have been validating MS's actions up to this point.

And that is false.  Again, Microsoft has lost cases, and has settled,
which probably means they expected to lose.

>If there is a law being broken now, it was being broken then too.

Certainly.  Though the scope of the impact of Microsoft's actions has
only become clear recently; remember, the web didn't hit big until 1995.

>> You should know that many, many MS employees are paid in stock to a
>> significant degree, and that both Standard Oil and AT&T became *more*
>> valuable when they were broken up.
>
>Having a few shares of valuable stock is little solace when you've lost your
>job.

Um, why is that exactly?  Value is value.  Since they agreed to be paid
in stock in the first place, and the stock's value would rise beyond
what it would have otherwise, then effectively their wages are going up.

Anyway, you're still arguing on the basis of the idea that fining
Microsoft would cause people to lose their jobs, and you still have
presented neither examples of this happening in the past, nor any
scenario (plausible or otherwise) that would result in it happening in
the future.

--
 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: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 18:07:20
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: does anybody actually use OS/2, and why??

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

Oh puhleeze...  let's talk about home computer usage.  Not ATMs, banks,
brothels, or anywhere else not pertaining to home use - which is more likely
her point of view or are you proving one of her points that people still use
OS/2 just because they, for whatever political reason, don't want to switch
to another OS?  After all, OS/2 is not all that great (just ask that input
queue and buggy WPS) and IBM is about 50,000 times lower than OS/2 yet you
OS/2 people still bother to use it.

Totally illogical.

Well, I haven't used ATMs in years.  But I log into an AS/400 using an
emulator screen.  Does that mean I use the AS/400?

John Hong <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:80fgj7$ct5$[e-mail]...
> Joar ([e-mail]) wrote:
> : I actually wonder about this.
>
> If you have a bank card than 9 chances out of 10 you probably
> have used OS/2...
>
>


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

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

From: [e-mail]                  12-Nov-99 02:32:10
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: [e-mail] (void)

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty wrote:
>
>Since you obviously have a superior understanding of the situation and have
>drawn better conclusions than I,

Now you're talking.

>why not tell us how fining MS is going right
>all of the wrongs that were caused.

It wouldn't.  But it would be a start.  First of all, there's the
intuitive principle that ill-gotten gains should be taken away, so as to
discourage further abuse.  Second, the money could be used to support
open systems research, or given to some of the companies Microsoft has
damaged through their illegal acts, or given back to the consumers they
took it from -- who are the real focus of these government actions, and
who will be the real beneficiaries when the software market is freed
from Microsoft's illegal practices.

I'll respond to the rest of your post in a minute, or perhaps tomorrow.

--
 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: [e-mail]                              12-Nov-99 03:52:14
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (Joe Ragosta)

In article <80fjdc$o3g$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> josco <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> > On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
> > > > Drestin Black wrote:
> >
> > > > >
> > > > > You must learn to try harder. Not give up so easily.
> > > >
> > > > Amen brother.  We just need to understand how to ammend the US
> > > > Constitution to allow a court of appeals to over turn the findings of
> > > > fact in a case.
> > > Unnecessary and I suspect you know this.
> >
> > I KNOW that some MS advocates are plain nuts when they suggest the finding
> > of fact can be invalidated or over turned.  Any hope indicates cultish
> > behavior.
> >
>
> Findings of any type are subject to appeal all the way to the Supreme Court.
> Findings of Fact aren't edicts from Linus^H^H^H^H^HGOD and are subject to
> human failings.

But they are, in general, relatively immune to being overturned on appeal.
Microsoft would have to show error so bad that no reasonable person could
have reached the same conclusions.

Since everything in the FoF was supported by one or more witnesses, it
would be hard to demonstrate that.

--
Regards,

Joe Ragosta

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: EarthLink Network, Inc. (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                12-Nov-99 03:40:28
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: [e-mail] (Jack Troughton)

On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:45:22, Brad BARCLAY <[e-mail]>
wrote:

ΩJeff Glatt wrote:
Ω>
Ω> >David H. McCoy
Ω> >So, we now have JavaBlend in Solaris and NT flavors? Isn't OS/2 the
premiere
Ω> >platform?
█
Ω    [most of the moronic drivel snipped...]
█
Ω> Ah well, it looks like IBM sold OS/2 users the Brooklyn Bridge YET
Ω> AGAIN when telling them that IBM was committed to making OS/2 the
Ω> premiere Java platform.... and OS/2 advocates actually believed
Ω> something that came out of the mouth of an IBM employee.
█
Ω    Of course, the fact that OS/2 has long had these capabiliies via
Ωproducts such as DB2 UDB, WebSphere, Domino Go, Net.Commerce, and
ΩVisualAge for Java, and several others seems to have entirely missed
Ωyou.
█
Ω    If you or Dave bothered ot read the press release, you'd notice that
Ωthese aren't really Java-based software packages.  They're merely Java
Ωintegration programs - something which OS/2 has had for a very long
Ωtime, thanks to the biggest Java development company in the world (which
Ωis IBM, BTW).
█
Ω    You'll in fact note the article explicitly states that the reason for
Ωthe mentioned releases from Sun is due to competition in the area from
Ωboth IBM and Oracle.
█
Ω    Oh - but wait - I'm talking to you, and not a normal, rational human
Ωbeing.  I forgot that FUD was more important to you than truth and
Ωreality.

Ouch... that looked painful:)

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                  12-Nov-99 03:30:05
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: [e-mail] (void)

In article <80fv1f$2bo$[e-mail]>, Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
>void <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>news:[e-mail]...
>>
>> It wouldn't.  But it would be a start.  First of all, there's the
>> intuitive principle that ill-gotten gains should be taken away, so as to
>> discourage further abuse.  Second, the money could be used to support
>> open systems research, or given to some of the companies Microsoft has
>> damaged through their illegal acts, or given back to the consumers they
>> took it from -- who are the real focus of these government actions, and
>> who will be the real beneficiaries when the software market is freed
>> from Microsoft's illegal practices.
>
>Figures you guys are looking for a hand out.  What this is becoming is
>software socialism.

Balls.  I don't buy Microsoft products, so I wouldn't be eligible for a
rebate.

--
 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: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 19:46:22
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>


void <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> In article <80fv1f$2bo$[e-mail]>, Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> >void <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> >news:[e-mail]...
> >>
> >> It wouldn't.  But it would be a start.  First of all, there's the
> >> intuitive principle that ill-gotten gains should be taken away, so as
to
> >> discourage further abuse.  Second, the money could be used to support
> >> open systems research, or given to some of the companies Microsoft has
> >> damaged through their illegal acts, or given back to the consumers they
> >> took it from -- who are the real focus of these government actions, and
> >> who will be the real beneficiaries when the software market is freed
> >> from Microsoft's illegal practices.
> >
> >Figures you guys are looking for a hand out.  What this is becoming is
> >software socialism.
>
> Balls.  I don't buy Microsoft products, so I wouldn't be eligible for a
> rebate.
>
> --
>  Ben
>
> [X] YES! I'm a brain-damaged lemur on crack, and I'd like to
>     order your software package for $459.95!

"support open systems research"  Open Sores looking for a hand out or
Software Socialism.

These are your words.

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


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

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 20:07:10
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Joe Ragosta <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> In article <80fjdc$o3g$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > josco <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:[e-mail]...
> > > On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Drestin Black wrote:
<trimmed>

> > > behavior.
> > >
> >
> > Findings of any type are subject to appeal all the way to the Supreme
Court.
> > Findings of Fact aren't edicts from Linus^H^H^H^H^HGOD and are subject
to
> > human failings.
>
> But they are, in general, relatively immune to being overturned on appeal.
> Microsoft would have to show error so bad that no reasonable person could
> have reached the same conclusions.
>

That shouldn't be difficult in this case.

> Since everything in the FoF was supported by one or more witnesses, it
> would be hard to demonstrate that.
>

The credibility of the witnesses is the problem here.

> --
> Regards,
>
> Joe Ragosta


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


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

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

From: [e-mail]                12-Nov-99 04:09:19
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Jack Troughton)

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 09:21:48, [e-mail] (Stan Goodman) wrote:

ΩOn Thu, 11 Nov 1999 07:15:56, "Erik" <[e-mail]> wrote:
█
Ω>
Ω> Stan Goodman wrote:
Ω> > ------------snip-----------
█
█
Ω> > > >>If there is any kind of penalty imposed on Microsoft perhaps they
Ω> could
Ω> > > >>diversify to BC; where we are also tired of this bogus government
Ω> > > >>intervention against success.  (After our present 'gov't' is gone, of
Ω> > > >>course).
Ω>
Ω>
Ω> > You mean you think that a company can sit in Canada and run a business in
Ω> > restraint of trade in the US?
Ω>
Ω> 1: You need to learn how those little >>> attribution thingies work.  I
Ω> wrote the above; not 'The Doctor', or 'Barry Adams'.
█
ΩSorry. I knew who wrote it; you were the only one with a Canadian email
Ωaddress.
Ω
Ω> 2: You need to recognize that Canada is not yet conjoined with the US.
█
ΩNo, that is clear to me: Canada can permit any sort of commercial abuse it
Ωwants to within its territory. What is less clear is how Microsoft, having
Ωfled to Canada to avoid US antitrust action, would survive with the US
Ωmarket denied to it. Any company doing business in the US is subject to US
Ωlaw. Maybe you need to understand that a company doing business outside its
Ωhome country is subject to the laws of the place in which it is doing
Ωbusiness.
█
Ω> 3: You might mail-order a dictionary and look up 'sarcasm'.
█
Ω?

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.

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?

But hey, I'm an anglo from Kingston, Ontario who "emigrated" to
Montr┌al, in French Quebec.  So what the hell do I know?:)

And just exactly what has this to do with OS/2...?  Definitely one of
the more interesting crossposts I've ever seen.  os2.misc,
os2.advocacy, bc.politics, can.politics?  Definitely strange...

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                            11-Nov-99 23:37:13
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>
>Since you obviously have a superior understanding of the situation and have
>drawn better conclusions than I, why not tell us how fining MS is going right
>all of the wrongs that were caused.
>
>- Marty
>

What wrongs? OS/2? Please. IBM did more to crush OS/2 than MS ever could.
Apple? Right? Apple's longtime refusal to clone the Mac and a its hardware
resulting in prices that would make PC makers and MS jealous followed by Steve

Jobs' decimation of that very market did in Apple.

Netscape? Well, this was bad, but resulted in free browsers. Find a single
consumer that is against free browsers and IE is a better product.

About the only wrong I see is that sliding OEM price scale and forcing people
to bundle the browser or OS.

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 20:12:02
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Joe Ragosta <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> In article <80fp79$qsn$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
> > Kieran Wheeler <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:[e-mail]...
> > > Chad Mulligan wrote:
> > >
> > > > Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > news:[e-mail]...
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Chad Mulligan wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > > > > > news:znu-1111990045140001@192.168.0.2...
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Unbiased judge, hmmm, heard months of testimony, in his
sleep.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Cheap shots aren't going to get you anywhere.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Except grounds for appeal.
> > > > >
> > > > > Oh please elaborate.   What legal right was violated ?
> > >
> > > > The right to fair and impartial judgment.
> > >
> > > The last resort of the losers: whining that the outcome was inevitable
> > because
> > > the judge was "biased." When you have a set of witnesses that run
rings
> > around
> > > the truth, try their damnedest to ignore what the judge asks of them
and
> > goes
> > > as far as to outrightly lie to the judge (and unconvincingly, at
that),
> > you
> > > cannot then say that the judge was "prejudiced" against sweet little
> > innocent
> > > you.
> > >
> >
> > The last resort of idiots is to attempt to ridicule a persons considered
> > opinion.
>
> When the opinion is ridiculous, it deserves to be ridiculed.
>

The voice of reason speaking here.


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



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

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

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          11-Nov-99 22:06:19
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, James Himmelman said :

> > > I have been an OS/2 user for many years. If I ever felt the need to
> > > move to another platform, I might monitor these groups on occasion to
> > > see what's new, but I wouldn't dream of trying to get the rest of you
> > > to switch.
>
> > Speak for yourself and not about others especially with respect to
> > what you may be inclined to or not to do.

> Read it again. I WAS speaking for myself. The giveaway was the use of
> the word "I" throughout those sentences. Don't fret though, not
> everyone can read and understand English well.

Ah, Hmmm. :))))

True. John was doing the same thing. :)

> > > He showed his hand in the end.
>
> > You certainly have shown yours as well.
>
> As have you.
>
> > You haven't shown your head though; it's still buried in the sand.
>
> I have Windows installed on this machine. I rarely boot to it though,
> because while I can use both OS/2, and Windows on this machine, I
> prefer OS/2. I used to use Win3.1, and I tried to warm up to Win95. I
> have a fully functional Win95 partition, complete with apps to perform
> the tasks that are now handled for me by OS/2. I tried to like it, but
> still prefer OS/2.

I used win3.1 initially and then win95. Didn't have any particular
problems as such. It was a case of what you don't know won't hurt you
kinda thing. The crashes were occasional, but they were there. I
decided to try OS/2. What an eye-opening experience that was. I
enjoyed it immensely. I still prefer it to NT in many respects.

> I don't care for Microsofts tactics, but I am not terribly fond of IBM
> either - and I am fully aware that it is IBM that wrote the book on
> many of the dirty tactics now employed by MS.

We agree on something.

> The original post could have simply told a story about why he
> switched, and how it has worked out, and left it at that. The fact the
> he felt the need to tell US that we should "leave OS/2" shows that the
> post was either a fake, or he is an idiot, because how could he
> possibly know what would be best for ME. He gave himself away. Just
> because you are not bright enough to figure that out, doesn't mean it
> isn't true.

I'm not bright enough?? LOL! Cute. :)

You read too much in the post. You need to relax. Have a drink or
something. :)

> It seems that it is your head that is buried. I have both OS's
> installed for direct "side by side" comparison on the exact same
> hardware. How about you?

Your head isn't buried since you have both OS's installed? Hmmm

OS/2 isn't presently installed on my machine since I need the space
and it really wasn't offering me anything special, anymore. I have
Linux installed, however, and am slowly getting to know it. It needs
it's just assessment as OS/2, but though I'm impressed with it as an
operating system, the type of software support that *I* would prefer
isn't there yet. NT is indeed my best solution at present. Don't you
worry. I'm not a mindless lemming who doesn't know about the choices
out there and I will quickly discontinue using NT if a better choice
presents itself. I used OS/2 but that's now history and fond memories.

--
-=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: [e-mail]                                      11-Nov-99 22:27:18
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: OS/2 drivers for Voodoo3 2000 video card

From: "Jim Lee Jr." <[e-mail]>

                                            Folks,
                                              Do any of you know of Voodoo3
2000 drivers for OS/2 Warp 3? I am expecting to recieve Warp 3 to try out
and am wondering if there are miscellaneous non-Windows95/98 drivers. Any
info is appreciated. Thanks much.

                                    Jim


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 23:46:28
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

"David H. McCoy" wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
> >
> >Since you obviously have a superior understanding of the situation and have
> >drawn better conclusions than I, why not tell us how fining MS is going
right
> >all of the wrongs that were caused.
> >
> >- Marty
> >
>
> What wrongs? OS/2? Please. IBM did more to crush OS/2 than MS ever could.
> Apple? Right? Apple's longtime refusal to clone the Mac and a its hardware
> resulting in prices that would make PC makers and MS jealous followed by
Steve
> Jobs' decimation of that very market did in Apple.
>
> Netscape? Well, this was bad, but resulted in free browsers. Find a single
> consumer that is against free browsers and IE is a better product.
>
> About the only wrong I see is that sliding OEM price scale and forcing
people
> to bundle the browser or OS.

Putting words in my mouth?  The wrongs to which I am referring are the wrongs
which are being discovered in the courtroom, and going on the books as
"facts".

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                11-Nov-99 23:37:01
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: [e-mail] (tholenbot)

In article <802lbi$es7$[e-mail]>, [e-mail] 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.

> >>>>>>>> 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.

> >>>>>>>> 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.

--
"I do not "approve" phrases.
-Dave Tholen"
-tholenbot

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

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

From: [e-mail]                  12-Nov-99 04:24:22
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: [e-mail] (void)

In article <[e-mail]>, David H. McCoy
wrote:
>In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
>>
>>Since you obviously have a superior understanding of the situation and have
>>drawn better conclusions than I, why not tell us how fining MS is going
right
>>all of the wrongs that were caused.
>
>What wrongs? OS/2? Please. IBM did more to crush OS/2 than MS ever could.
>Apple? Right?

Looks like someone read Jerry Pournelle's moronic article ... instead of
setting up strawmen for yourself to tear down, go read the facts of the
case and then come back and we'll talk.

--
 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: [e-mail]                  12-Nov-99 04:22:29
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: [e-mail] (void)

In article <80g2i0$3rc$[e-mail]>, Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
>"support open systems research"  Open Sores looking for a hand out or
>Software Socialism.
>
>These are your words.

I thought you'd crawled under a rock permanently after those findings of
fact came out.

Anyway, can't you do better than that?  The government supports all
sorts of research, through subsidies and tax write-offs.  The internet
started as a government project, remember?

*sigh* This is getting too easy, I may have to become a Windows
advocate just so my ingenuity will be challenged more often.

--
 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: [e-mail]                12-Nov-99 04:43:16
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: PM on Windows?

From: [e-mail] (Jack Troughton)

Hmmm... I saw something on the Mercury news today that sounds quite
interesting...

------------>Begin<---------------

Several methods of accomplishing that goal have been under
consideration.  One would spawn different companies out of today's
behemoth Microsoft.  Each of these ``Baby Bills'' (alluding to
co-founder Bill Gates and AT&T's Baby Bells), would have the right to
sell versions of the Microsoft's operating system.

Another approach would be to simply force Microsoft to let outside
companies sell their own copy of the Windows operating system.  These
companies would likely tinker with the ``front end'' of the operating
system, making it look different or providing certain enhanced
functions, in an attempt to differentiate their product.  But the
products would all be based on the same open standard for the core of
the Windows operating system, which Microsoft would be required to
share.

---------->End<------------------

Or maybe port the WPS to the Win2k kernel, allowing a warp desktop
next to a windows desktop.

Or a windows desktop next to a warp desktop.  Perhaps putting win32 as
a desktop on the warp kernel to run in a fullscreen session (similarly
to how X runs under warp currently) would be very cool.  As I
understand it, the WSeB kernel shouldn't have any structural problems
running win32 (ie- memory limits etc.)

That sounds very interesting indeed.

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

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     11-Nov-99 20:50:27
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Chad Mulligan wrote:

> Joe Ragosta <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
>

>
> > > The last resort of idiots is to attempt to ridicule a persons considered
> > > opinion.
> >
> > When the opinion is ridiculous, it deserves to be ridiculed.
> >
>
> The voice of reason speaking here.

Go on guys.  Ridicule him.

This is the same man who was ridiculed for his injunction on Win98 and IE.  He
was then appointed to be the Judge for the anti-trust case BECAUSE HE WAS MOST
FAMILIAR with the topic.  Funny how grandstanding polluted one man's opinion
of
MS.

The same man MS ridiculed at computer shows along with Joel Klien and the DOJ.
These people are the ones MS must now seek approval to reach a compromise.
Joel
Klein as stated there is great value in not settling and seeking a definitive
ruling to establish law.

The more personal it gets the worse off MS's position.  Go on guys.  Cut off a
nose.





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

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 23:59:10
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: PM on Windows?

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Jack Troughton wrote:
>
> Or maybe port the WPS to the Win2k kernel, allowing a warp desktop
> next to a windows desktop.
>
> Or a windows desktop next to a warp desktop.  Perhaps putting win32 as
> a desktop on the warp kernel to run in a fullscreen session (similarly
> to how X runs under warp currently) would be very cool.  As I
> understand it, the WSeB kernel shouldn't have any structural problems
> running win32 (ie- memory limits etc.)
>
> That sounds very interesting indeed.

Who would bother funding such a project (either one)?  Let's be realistic
here.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                              12-Nov-99 03:59:05
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: [e-mail] (Joe Ragosta)

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]> 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.

What about the janitors and window cleaners at Stac? Or at Netscape? Or
any of the other businesses MS has screwed?

That's the way business works. If MS is guilty and needs to be punished,
that's life. It was Microsoft's illegal behavior that kept them employed
as long as they were.

>
> > >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?

The benefited from the actions of high level management. They have to
suffer. That's what it means to work for someone else.

>
> > 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.

No, but there's no essential difference. Your argument is that the grunts
shouldn't have to suffer for management's illegal activities. Why is that
true in one case, but not in others?

>
> > 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.

What about all the innocent people who suffered at the companies MS
attacked? Don't they have any rights?

Actually, they don't. The legal action is (and should be) against the
corporation. It's not the court's responsibility to consider the people
who were incidental beneficiaries of Microsoft's crimes. And that's
probably just as well or a case could be made for making all those people
give back most of the stock MS was able to give them due to their
ill-gotten gains.

>
> > >>>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.  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.

Yep. As I expected--yet another person who doesn't have a clue how the
system works.

The DOJ started this suit at about the time MSIE was bundled with Windows.
It takes time to put a suit of this magnitude together.

>
> > >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.

True. But the antitrust laws existed long before Gates was even born--much
less Microsoft.

>
> > 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.
>

Feel free. Judges need a good belly laugh now and then, too.

--
Regards,

Joe Ragosta

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: EarthLink Network, Inc. (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                              12-Nov-99 04:00:14
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (Joe Ragosta)

In article <80fp79$qsn$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Kieran Wheeler <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> > Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> > > Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Chad Mulligan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:znu-1111990045140001@192.168.0.2...
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > > Unbiased judge, hmmm, heard months of testimony, in his sleep.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Cheap shots aren't going to get you anywhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > Except grounds for appeal.
> > > >
> > > > Oh please elaborate.   What legal right was violated ?
> >
> > > The right to fair and impartial judgment.
> >
> > The last resort of the losers: whining that the outcome was inevitable
> because
> > the judge was "biased." When you have a set of witnesses that run rings
> around
> > the truth, try their damnedest to ignore what the judge asks of them and
> goes
> > as far as to outrightly lie to the judge (and unconvincingly, at that),
> you
> > cannot then say that the judge was "prejudiced" against sweet little
> innocent
> > you.
> >
>
> The last resort of idiots is to attempt to ridicule a persons considered
> opinion.

When the opinion is ridiculous, it deserves to be ridiculed.

--
Regards,

Joe Ragosta

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: EarthLink Network, Inc. (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 20:57:07
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

void <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> In article <80g2i0$3rc$[e-mail]>, Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> >"support open systems research"  Open Sores looking for a hand out or
> >Software Socialism.
> >
> >These are your words.
>
> I thought you'd crawled under a rock permanently after those findings of
> fact came out.
>

Nope, just ignoring your condescension.

> Anyway, can't you do better than that?  The government supports all
> sorts of research, through subsidies and tax write-offs.  The internet
> started as a government project, remember?
>

They at least made the right choice by moving the Internet into the
commercial realm, where software developement belongs as well.  You guys are
just worried about losing your sugardaddy.

> *sigh* This is getting too easy, I may have to become a Windows
> advocate just so my ingenuity will be challenged more often.

Try again. I doubt you could really handle windows anyway.

>
> --
>  Ben
>
> [X] YES! I'm a brain-damaged lemur on crack, and I'd like to
>     order your software package for $459.95!


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


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

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 20:59:06
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

void <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> In article <[e-mail]>, David H. McCoy
wrote:
> >In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] says...
> >>
> >>Since you obviously have a superior understanding of the situation and
have
> >>drawn better conclusions than I, why not tell us how fining MS is going
right
> >>all of the wrongs that were caused.
> >
> >What wrongs? OS/2? Please. IBM did more to crush OS/2 than MS ever could.
> >Apple? Right?
>
> Looks like someone read Jerry Pournelle's moronic article ... instead of
> setting up strawmen for yourself to tear down, go read the facts of the
> case and then come back and we'll talk.

Which Pournelle article?  You should re read it, I've read much of
Pournelle's work and never found it moronic, you probably missed something.

>
> --
>  Ben
>
> [X] YES! I'm a brain-damaged lemur on crack, and I'd like to
>     order your software package for $459.95!


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


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     11-Nov-99 21:05:26
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Chad Mulligan wrote:

> Joe Ragosta <[e-mail]> wrote in message

>
> > > Findings of any type are subject to appeal all the way to the Supreme
> Court.
> > > Findings of Fact aren't edicts from Linus^H^H^H^H^HGOD and are subject
> to
> > > human failings.
> >
> > But they are, in general, relatively immune to being overturned on appeal.
> > Microsoft would have to show error so bad that no reasonable person could
> > have reached the same conclusions.
> >
>
> That shouldn't be difficult in this case.

Ignore the damning MS e-mails.  Ignore the DOJ's witnesses. Ignore the Judge's
finding of fact.

> > Since everything in the FoF was supported by one or more witnesses, it
> > would be hard to demonstrate that.
> >
>
> The credibility of the witnesses is the problem here.

That credibility is determined by the trial Judge and is why a Finding of Fact
is so hard to overturn.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 23:43:04
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

I can probably sum up my response to this with one simple age-old, tried and
true phrase:

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I've also noted that no one who has responded to me in favor of punishing MS
has bothered to describe how such a thing could be beneficial.

Joe Ragosta wrote:
>
> In article <[e-mail]>, Marty <[e-mail]>
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.
>
> What about the janitors and window cleaners at Stac? Or at Netscape? Or
> any of the other businesses MS has screwed?

So they should receive a settlement for all of their lost potential wages from
the moment they were let go until now?  Sorry, but that just doesn't happen.

> That's the way business works. If MS is guilty and needs to be punished,
> that's life. It was Microsoft's illegal behavior that kept them employed
> as long as they were.

No.  It was their jobs skills which kept them employed as long as they were.

> > > >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?
>
> The benefited from the actions of high level management. They have to
> suffer. That's what it means to work for someone else.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.  What would their suffering accomplish?

> > > 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.
>
> No, but there's no essential difference.

I beg to differ.

> Your argument is that the grunts shouldn't have to suffer for management's
> illegal activities. Why is that true in one case, but not in others?

In a cartel, everyone is a criminal.  They go into it knowing they are
criminals.  In a corporation it's quite a different story.  Criminal justice
is
quite different from anti-trust laws and corporate justice.

> > > 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.
>
> What about all the innocent people who suffered at the companies MS
> attacked? Don't they have any rights?

The damage has been done.  You can't un-pee in the pool.

> Actually, they don't. The legal action is (and should be) against the
> corporation. It's not the court's responsibility to consider the people
> who were incidental beneficiaries of Microsoft's crimes. And that's
> probably just as well or a case could be made for making all those people
> give back most of the stock MS was able to give them due to their
> ill-gotten gains.

So people at MS should suffer who had no part in the decision-making?  Hardly
seems fair or just.  And for what would they be suffering?  Who would benefit
and how?

> > > >>>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.  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.
>
> Yep. As I expected--yet another person who doesn't have a clue how the
> system works.
>
> The DOJ started this suit at about the time MSIE was bundled with Windows.
> It takes time to put a suit of this magnitude together.

That obviously wasn't their first infraction, nor their first court
appearance.

> > > >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.
>
> True. But the antitrust laws existed long before Gates was even born--much
> less Microsoft.
>
> >
> > > 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.
>
> Feel free. Judges need a good belly laugh now and then, too.

I imagine you'd feel quite differently if your job was on the line.

- Marty

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                11-Nov-99 23:36:20
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: (1/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (tholenbot)

In article <802mfk$fuj$[e-mail]>, Dave "Bennett" Tholen
([e-mail]) 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.

> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.

> >>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>
> >>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?
>
> >>>>>>> Are you sure this 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.

> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.

> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.

> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.

> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.

> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.

> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.

> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.

> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.

> >>>>>>>>>>> I need a little more detail please.
>
> >>>>>>>>>> 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?
>
> >>>>>>> When did you first know that those were 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.

> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.

> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.

> >>>>>>>>>>> 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.

> >>>>>>>>>>> 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?
>

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

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

From: [e-mail]                11-Nov-99 23:36:20
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: (2/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

> >>> 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.

--
"I do not "approve" phrases.
-Dave Tholen"
-tholenbot

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     11-Nov-99 21:07:18
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:02
Subj: Re: does anybody actually use OS/2, and why??

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Kelly Robinson wrote:

> Oh puhleeze...  let's talk about home computer usage.

Sure, what about game consoles?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               11-Nov-99 12:02:09
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:03
Subj: Re: difference between OS/2 warp server and OS/2 warp 4..

From: "Doug Kneupper" <[e-mail]>

Warp Server is OS/2 Warp with network server and client software included.
Most of the "extra stuff"
is of no use to you unless you plan to use it on a local area network.  I
believe that Warp Server
became available in version 3. So you may want to check in some of the
documentation to determine
if it is Warp Server V3 or Warp Server V4.

Doug Kneupper

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:25:56 GMT, Christopher wrote:

>hai:
>
>    i really need some explanation here.
>    to all the OS/2 user out there, could anyone tell me that what
>is the difference between OS/2 Warp server and OS/2 Warp 4?
>
>    i am thinking of using OS/2 Warp 4 but what i have got from my
>uncle is OS/2 Warp server. are they the same and if it's not, what's
>the difference between those?
>
>    the answer is needed in urgent. thanks in advance for your
>answer. please reply to my mail box:
>
>    [e-mail].
>
>thanks again.
>
>christ.
>Malaysia.

Doug Kneupper


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

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 22:47:10
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:03
Subj: How much longer can you use this thing?

From: [e-mail] (Mac)

What about Linux or Mac?

Face it, OS/2 is dead. I did the linux thing for several months at home.

I don't need unix on my home network.

The other choices are BEOS, WinBlows or Mac.

I had a VERY bad experience where a supervisor pretty much said "We will
be going to OS/2". He got fired shortly thereafter.

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.

Mac

--
Absolutely no Microsoft products were used to create or post this message!

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: none (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                     11-Nov-99 22:09:03
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:03
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Chad Mulligan wrote:


> > I think what you're backing into is that there are so many problems with a
> > Wintel PC that the user is FORCED to do more system adminstration and
> > tinkering.  Gartner Group and others call this extra "learning" a cost.
> MS is
> > trying to lower this cost.  I must admit -- it is very creative to say the
> > sysadmin Windows forces on a user is a plus.  That a user learns more and
> thus
> > is benfits.  Of course  you're not the one paying that person's salary.
> >
>
> 1. I'm not backing into anything.

Oh yes.  We'll cover the points one more time.

> 2. The user isn't forced to do anything, the better users learn because they
> can.

Learn what?  Learn how to tune and maintain a PC.  A cost - lower
productivity.

> 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.


> The training curve of three respective systems show Macs to have a shallower
> initial curve that peaks at a very low level of knowledge,

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.

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.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     11-Nov-99 21:57:15
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:03
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Drestin Black wrote:

> Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
> >
> >
> >

>
> > I know a finding of fact can be challenged and I can think of a few RARE
> cases
> > when one or two facts were.  I think YOUR problem is a confusion with
> singular
> > and plural.  Fact or Facts.  As I understand the process, it would be
> necessary
> > to find each of his facts, including the credibility of the witness in
> error.
> > That is not possible in this case.  Since he essentially agreed with the
> DOJ's
> > story, the facts are extensive and traceable to the witnesses.
> >
>
> Ok, are we in synch? What you are saying is that now that this one judge has
> had his findings of fact written out by his assistants - that's it. These
> are facts. Period. They CANNOT be wrong. Written in stone. It would take a
> constitutional amendment and an act of god to alter any of these facts.

Well that's a loser argument to take an extreme position.  And why not be
literal instead of using vague terms like "written in stone"?

If you think the FoF can be overturned then you're in agreement with the
lunatic
fringe.  No anti-trust lawyer is even suggesting  the FoF will be overturned.
It's not sensible to hope.


> "Since he essentially agreed with the DOJ's story, the facts are extensive
> and traceable to the witnesses."
>
> Am I reading this right? I'm sure you didn't mean what you wrote that since
> he agreed with the DOJ, THAT makes the facts extensive and traceable to
> witnesses? I know you meant something else but I think a bias you have is
> revealed here. I think you're happy to say that since the judge agreed with
> the way you want things to come out the facts conviently support this too.

I meant what I wrote since the basis for overturning his FoF would mean the
DoJ's witnesses and arguments were implausible.


> Are we not to consider that the judge is not guilty of the post hoc ergo
> proper hoc fallacy? (The post hoc ergo proper hoc (after this therefore
> because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply
> because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the
> second event. Post hoc reasoning is the basis for many superstitions and
> erroneous beliefs.)

Please do consider "post hoc ergo proper hoc " fallacy.    ....  Now apply the
fallacy to the FoF.


> How about confirmation bias (confirmation bias refers to a type of selective
> thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's
> beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what
> contradicts one's beliefs

Oh yes.  I know that one.
The trial Judge in the Cladera case was "offended " by MS's "confirmation
bais"
Did you read his ruling?  There is a pattern - MS is the offender.



> Or even Communal reinforcement (the process by which a claim becomes a
> strong belief through repeated assertion by members of a community).
> Something COLA members are most guilty of.

Oh yes.  The Freedom to Innovate movement funded by MS and dedicated to
creating
grassroots support of MS.
http://www.microsoft.com/freedomtoinnovate/default.htm

> Do you assume that this judge is infalable? He was not mislead by the DOJ
> attorneys? He didn't misunderstand some of the mechanics of how the computer
> software/hardware industry operates normally? Why is it that there is no
> chance that this guy is simply wrong? Are all judges right always? He has
> been overruled twice out of two rulings. Why do you not notice his track
> record and give consideration to the idea that other judges are ruling that
> this judge is not quite accurate in these matters and has been proven wrong
> before? Why do you think that suddenly he's got it 100% right and his
> findings of fact are any better than his previous attempts at making rulings
> that stick?

No I do not make the silly assumptions you listed therefore you're wrong.

Who's arguing a Judge is infallible?  Who's arguing the FoF is perfect?  The
MS
advocate. What ever happened to arguing for hope the FoF can be overturned?
On
what basis - it is not perfect?  Please, please.  Don't make me laugh any
harder.

Courts are human institutions capable of making many mistakes but we adults
accept them and rely on them to find fact and apply law and  administer
justice.  The FoF is not a technical document designed to chronicle how
technology works -- it is based on the trial and the fact MS gave such a
horrible defense I would imagine the FoF would be harsh against MS.  Blame MS.


>

> > And  facts are not whims easily challenged which is why not one legal
> expert on
> > either side of the case is making the suggestion (as reported by the
> press)
> > that the finding of facts will be "over turned".
>
> Obviously the DOJ won't say it and MS isn't saying much. I think MS is
> playing their cards very VERY clos to their chest. MS attorneys are not
> stupid either. Best money can buy, if you'd like to put it that way, and
> money can buy the best.

No Sir.  These men put on a trial that stunk.  They lost on all major points.
Maybe the Gates deposition or the Allchin video deposition need to be
replayed.


> For them to be standing there and saying: "Well, I
> guess that's that, it's over. Carved in stone we're guilty, lets get the
> pocketbook out and start writing checks in a zillion copycat suits to
> follow" is ridiculous.

How naive :-)  The DoJ will NOT settle.    They want and need to take this
case
to trial so they can establish how anti-trust laws work in the new computer
industry.  You have been following Joel Klein's comments in the press.  The MS
case is too strong a case and they need to establish law to avoid future
litigation with other companies.  It's their choice to not settle and MS's
problem if that means they have to write a zillion checks in lawsuits.


> If the tobacco industry can completely fuck with the
> courts for as long and effectively as they have since the 40s - why do you
> think the DOJ will fair any better than the FDA? (note: I am not, would
> never, defend the tobacco industry or it's behaviour, I think they should
> all be forced to die from tar-induced cancer)

:-)   The tobacco industry is not anti-trust law.  It is product liability.
The
anti-trust laws establish how the Court can ask the Supreme Court to hear the
case directly.  It can end as soon as next fall.


> >Or that some appeals court
> > will write their own finding of fact.  And one does not reverse facts.
> Maybe
> > you can find a pointer to an expert that thinks like you.
>
> A fact is only a fact so long as it's not proven false. You CAN disprove a
> fact, prove that it was incorrectly deduced or calculated from flawed input.
> Etcetera. In the 1400s wasn't it a fact that the earth was flat. I mean,
> fact. F-A-C-T. Everyone knew it, it was in the books, it was taught, it was
> law it was the church it was as real as "fire is hot" - hows that fact doing
> today? I'll bet I can find some experts that can refute that fact for ya...

You're wrong.  A FoF is a very specific and legal document.  It is not the
same
kind of fact a scientist would call a fact.  You use a mix of terms and
meanings
and are not disciplined enough in thought to support your argument.


> Anyway... you should not argue absolutes.

You took an extreme interpretation which never once supported your hope that
the
FoF would be overturned.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                   12-Nov-99 01:05:25
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:03
Subj: Re: MicroSoft a Monopoly?!?!

From: [e-mail] (Harry Travis)

In <[e-mail]>, on
11/11/99
   at 05:24 AM, [e-mail] (Buddy Donnelly) said:

>On Wed, 10 Nov 1999 06:17:45, "Doug Darrow" <[e-mail]> a
>écrit dans un message:

>> On Mon, 08 Nov 1999 00:57:34 -0500, Bob Germer wrote:
>>
>> >As much as I would like to say he was expelled, he wasn't. He is
>> >officially carried on Harvard's records as on leave of absence in good
>> >standing.
>> >
>> >Of course, Harvard may just be hoping he will drop some money on it.
>>
>> It was only Papa's money (and political influence) that kept him on
>> their books 'in good standing.'

>And it was very ironic that he (and his wife, his "better" half for
>real?)  donated big bucks this year to the United Negro College Fund.
>Their motto?  "A Mind Is A Terrible Thing To Waste."

>Even the worst of us can serve as somebody else's Bad Example.

And in BD's case--see exegisis on the NS 4.61 Easter Eggs, elsewhere--

"Waste is a terrible thing to mind"

For BD , "mind" is defined as "keep track of, store, archive, backup."
For Jeff Kobal of IBM's Netscape team, BD includes in his definition,--
incorrectly--"make objection over, take umbradge with".


--
-----------------------------------------------------------
[e-mail] (Harry Travis)
DemostiX
-----------------------------------------------------------

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     11-Nov-99 22:14:15
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:03
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Joseph <[e-mail]>


Chad Mulligan wrote:

> Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
> >
> >
> > Chad Mulligan wrote:
> >
> > > ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > > news:znu-1111990045140001@192.168.0.2...
> > >
> >
> > >
> > > > > Unbiased judge, hmmm, heard months of testimony, in his sleep.
> > > >
> > > > Cheap shots aren't going to get you anywhere.
> > >
> > > Except grounds for appeal.
> >
> > Oh please elaborate.   What legal right was violated ?
>
> The right to fair and impartial judgment.

As I said, please elaborate.


> > And I'd love to know how cheap shots are going to have a positive impact
> on any
> > the appeal.   Do courts encourage disrespectful baiting of Judges?  No
> they do
> > not.
> >
> > Judge Jackson allowed MS broad latitude in their examinations so they
> cannot
> > claim he cut them short.  Boring a Judge to sleep isn't the right of a
> > defendant.
> >
>
> By limiting cross examination, by sleeping through testimony, by letting the
> plaintif write his opinion.. Yeah that's fair.

You contradict yourself.

He allowed MS so much time that they bored him with fruitless and repetitive
questions under cross examination.  The boring cross examinations show MS was
not limited -- they were not working towards any point but fishing and
harassing.  By whining that the plaintiff wrote the FoF, you argue the FoF was
based on the record.



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

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 22:27:11
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:03
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
>
>
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
>
> > > I think what you're backing into is that there are so many problems
with a
> > > Wintel PC that the user is FORCED to do more system adminstration and
> > > tinkering.  Gartner Group and others call this extra "learning" a
cost.
> > MS is
> > > trying to lower this cost.  I must admit -- it is very creative to say
the
> > > sysadmin Windows forces on a user is a plus.  That a user learns more
and
> > thus
> > > is benfits.  Of course  you're not the one paying that person's
salary.
> > >
> >
> > 1. I'm not backing into anything.
>
> Oh yes.  We'll cover the points one more time.
>
> > 2. The user isn't forced to do anything, the better users learn because
they
> > can.
>
> 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.

> > 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.

>
> > The training curve of three respective systems show Macs to have a
shallower
> > initial curve that peaks at a very low level of knowledge,
>
> 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.

> 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.

>


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


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

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

From: [e-mail]                      11-Nov-99 22:30:15
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:03
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message news:[e-mail]...
>
>
> Chad Mulligan wrote:
>
> > Joseph <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> > >
> > >
> > > Chad Mulligan wrote:
> > >
> > > > ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > > > news:znu-1111990045140001@192.168.0.2...
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > > Unbiased judge, hmmm, heard months of testimony, in his sleep.
> > > > >
> > > > > Cheap shots aren't going to get you anywhere.
> > > >
> > > > Except grounds for appeal.
> > >
> > > Oh please elaborate.   What legal right was violated ?
> >
> > The right to fair and impartial judgment.
>
> As I said, please elaborate.
>

I have and Drestin has, you obviously don't have the scope to understand.

>
> > > And I'd love to know how cheap shots are going to have a positive
impact
> > on any
> > > the appeal.   Do courts encourage disrespectful baiting of Judges?  No
> > they do
> > > not.
> > >
> > > Judge Jackson allowed MS broad latitude in their examinations so they
> > cannot
> > > claim he cut them short.  Boring a Judge to sleep isn't the right of a
> > > defendant.
> > >
> >
> > By limiting cross examination, by sleeping through testimony, by letting
the
> > plaintif write his opinion.. Yeah that's fair.
>
> You contradict yourself.

NOT.

>
> He allowed MS so much time that they bored him with fruitless and
repetitive
> questions under cross examination.  The boring cross examinations show MS
was
> not limited -- they were not working towards any point but fishing and
> harassing.  By whining that the plaintiff wrote the FoF, you argue the FoF
was
> based on the record.
>

Not exactly, though in your limited scope you would conclude that, because
you preconcluded that.  This makes this argument pointless, so end of
discussion.

>
>


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


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                   12-Nov-99 06:47:26
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 03:36:03
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (ZnU)

In article <80g3oj$4l1$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
<[e-mail]> wrote:

> Joe Ragosta <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> news:[e-mail]...
> > In article <80fjdc$o3g$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
> > <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > > josco <[e-mail]> wrote in message
> > > news:[e-mail]...
> > > > On Thu, 11 Nov 1999, Drestin Black wrote:
> <trimmed>
>
> > > > behavior.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Findings of any type are subject to appeal all the way to the Supreme
> Court.
> > > Findings of Fact aren't edicts from Linus^H^H^H^H^HGOD and are subject
> to
> > > human failings.
> >
> > But they are, in general, relatively immune to being overturned on appeal.
> > Microsoft would have to show error so bad that no reasonable person could
> > have reached the same conclusions.
> >
>
> That shouldn't be difficult in this case.

Please quote specific sections of the document you believe to be clearly
erroneous and explain why you believe they are not. Until you do this you
have exactly nothing zero credibility.

> > Since everything in the FoF was supported by one or more witnesses, it
> > would be hard to demonstrate that.
> >
>
> The credibility of the witnesses is the problem here.

Yes, you're right. I'm _sure_ that high-level executives of many of the
world's top tech companies got up and risked both the wrath of Microsoft
and _perjury charges_ to tell lies. And all those internal MS documents
were DoJ forgeries too, right? And the doctored video, well, the tape was
switched on MS! By Steve Jobs himself! This isn't a case of a company
exploiting its market power to maintain a monopoly at all! It's just a
_vast conspiracy_ to bring down MS!

On the other hand, everything _Microsoft_ says must be totally true,
because Microsoft doesn't have _any_ bias at all in this case, right?

--
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 <[e-mail]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         12-Nov-99 07:08:07
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:01
Subj: (1/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

From: [e-mail] (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?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>>>>>>>>>> Is it because of your sex life that you are going through all this?

>>>>>>>>> Are you sure this 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?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 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?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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 need a little more detail please.

>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>>>>>>>>> When did you first know that those were 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?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>>>>>>>>>>>>> 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?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         12-Nov-99 07:08:07
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: (2/2) Re: Advocacy's Mosquito...

>>>>>>>>> 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?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                           11-Nov-99 13:57:27
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/11/99 at 01:28 PM,
   "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> said:


> > > 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)

Absolutely. There is no reason that all dashboard layouts should be the
same, similar, or anything else. Consistent design is useful only in
schools for the mentally handicapped.

> >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 are changing the subject. I would suspect most of doing it
deliberately, but you do not appear bright enough. In any event, I said
the major pedals were analogous to the keyboard, mouse, and joystick. That
should be and is consistent. I said dashboards, controls, etc. were not
and that was a good thing.

> >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?)

No, it is a very bad thing which leads to overconfidence and crashes. I
have logged nearly 32,000 hours in over 100 types of aircraft in 40+ years
flying. I NEVER begin a flight or even a flight segment without making an
exterior pre-flight check and using the pre-flight checklists EVEN IF I
HAVE FLOWN THE SAME AIRCRAFT EVERY DAY FOR THE PREVIOUS MONTH. I don't
care whether it's a J-3 Piper Cub with no electrical system or a L-1011
TriStar.

I have driven my current primary car, a Chrysler Cirrus LXI over 45,000
miles in the 19 months I have owned it. I do not start it without checking
the oil, looking under the hood, checking the tires, and walking around
the car. I do not start it until verifying the position of every switch
and control and making sure they are properly set. I have done this with
every car I have ever owned. In 47 years as a licensed driver, I have had
ONE accident in which I had any fault, and that was when a cup of very hot
coffee spilled onto my leg when I swerved to avoid a falling tree limb and
I sideswipped another car in the process. I've been rear ended a couple of
times, sideswipped by a drunk driver fleeing the police, t-boned by
another drunk who ran a red light, and forced off the road and overturned
by an out of control tractor trailer, but in none of those cases was I in
any way at fault.

In all my years of flying, the only damage I ever caused to an airplane
was breaking the wooden propeller of a J-3 Cub when the oil sump split
open on my fifth solo flight and I had to make a no-power landing in a
soggy field. Within the last 3 years, I had an engine failure in a Cessna
172 while flying less than 1200 feet above ground level on a clearance
into BWI (Baltimore Washington International a/k/a Friendship). I was far
beyond the airport (about 7 miles) under positive control by BWI Approach,
yet was able to divert to University of Maryland airport BECAUSE DESPITE
FLYING THAT ROUTE AN AVERAGE OF 60 TIMES A YEAR, I knew where every
possible emergency landing site was and that was because I NEVER fail to
know where I am and never stop looking for emergency landing areas when
flying VFR (visual flight rules) or when I have sight of the ground
beneath and around me.

Anyone who doesn't check the status of his or her car, its tires, its
visible wiring, etc. before starting the engine is bound to come to grief
sooner or later. Anyone who doesn't keep his or her head on a swivel every
minute he or she is operating any moving vehicle is bound to come to grief
sooner or later. Anyone who allows him or herself to be distracted by cell
phones, passengers, the radio, etc. is going to have an accident sooner or
later.

Well over 95%of my flight hours as PIC (Pilot in Command) and all of my
SIC time is in aircraft in which radio communications and navigation are
required. Pilots don't listen to music, ball games, etc. Nor do I in an
automobile. I will tune in stations in the local area which provide
traffic reports but only listen briefly at the time said reports are
given. I know where to find such stations in every major city along the
Eastern Seaboard from Boston to Richmond. If I don't need those, I don't
turn it on. When I am not in an area covered by these reports, I don't
turn the radio on.

Familiarity breeds contempt and contempt breeds complacency. Complacency
breeds errors.

> >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)

Everyone should be back to square one when operating any piece of
machinery no matter that be a computer, a car, a stove, an airplane, a
boat, or even a hair dryer.

> >This is good? Hell no.
> You disagree?

No, I do not agree that consistency is good nor that a single operating
system is good.

> <trim redundancy>

> I tried again - are you ready to realize that we agreed on our points
> but you choose to attack instead?

NO, we do NOT agree. Complacency, boredom, familiarity, whatever you
choose to term it is the underlying cause of most accidents be they in the
air, in a vehicle, in the home, on a boat, etc.

Read the NTSB accident reports on plane crashes. Less than 1% of them are
truly accidents beyond the control of the operator (aircraft owner) and
pilot(s). Virtually every one of them is a result of a sequence of events
which led to the final disaster. Virtually every one of those events was a
result of human error, most brought on by complacency.

In my 40+ years of flying, I can only cite about 6 accidents which were
the result of a design fault in the aircraft. Those include the British
Comet airliners which had an insufficient skin strength for the
pressurization required for the altitude at which they operated and the
Lockheed L-185 Electras which had an inadequately designed spar/lower
engine mount/main gear attach point. The last was the crash in Iowa of the
DC-10 which had a sudden, catestrophic failure of the #2 (center) engine.

When reading those reports about crashes of commercial airlines, you must
remember that the Airline Pilots Association has strong imput and
virtually a veto over citing the crew.

Take, for example, the crash of the United DC-10 out of OHare in Chicago
which left the number 1 engine on the runway subsequently crashed and
killed several hundred people. The first human error was not properly
removing/replacing the engine because doing it the easy way saved time and
effort. This was cited as the probable cause of the accident. Nonetheless,
the fact of the matter is that if the flight crew had really done their
homework and not assumed an attitude of complacency, they would not have
lost the plane. It was perfectly capable of continuing controlled flight
and making a safe landing. Rather, they failed to act as a crew, didn't
follow proceedure, and killed themselves and everyone else on board.

Air Florida out of DCA (Washington Reagan National Airport) which wound up
in the Potomac with only 3 or 4 survivors? Pilot error due to
overconfidence, complacency, and failure to follow published, mandated
proceedures.

The folks who survived the crash of the DC-10 in Iowa can thank a captain
who refused to allow himself to become complacent. When an unforeseeable
metallurgical failure in the center engine fan caused loss of all
hydraulic fluid, he and his crew became test pilots instantly. Despite his
sure knowledge that there was nothing in the aircraft flight manual
covering such an unimaginable disaster, he had the flight engineer looking
anyway. He had him communicating with his company mechanics anyway. He got
a third pair of hands from a dead-heading captain. The three of them kept
the plane in the air for nearly 40 minutes, guiding it to a controlled
crash on an airport with emergency medical and fire help available.

I've been participant in any number of safety conferences and such over
the years. I've been on such committees at various levels. The bottom line
is that pilot boredom is the greatest hazard in modern aviation. Very few
airline pilots have experienced a major system or engine failure and very
few will in an entire career. The unfortunate corrolary is that very few
are really




--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                         12-Nov-99 07:10:28
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: How much longer can you use this thing?

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Mac writes:

> Face it, OS/2 is dead.

People like you have been saying that for years.  Still can't get it
right.  Truly amazing.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         12-Nov-99 07:14:23
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Tholen Digest II - Electric Boogaloo

From: [e-mail] (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.

>>>>>>>>>> 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?

>>>>>>>>>> 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?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                           12-Nov-99 02:32:26
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <80fkf9$ola$[e-mail]>, on 11/11/99 at 03:46 PM,
   "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]> said:

> > 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.
> >

> You don't have to, if you'd actually ran it instead of ranting about it
> you'd know.

If one has less than a Pentium II at 400MHz and less than 128 MB of
memory, one finds NT to be a very slow operating system. My old Pentium 90
with 48 Megs of memory runs faster than the PII does when running NT.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           12-Nov-99 02:39:27
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: How much longer can you use this thing?

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on
11/11/99 at 10:47 PM,
   [e-mail] (Mac) said:

> 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.

> 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.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           12-Nov-99 02:40:23
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <80fiij$nk2$[e-mail]>, on 11/11/99 at 03:14 PM,
   "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]> said:

> > Oh please elaborate.   What legal right was violated ?
> >

> The right to fair and impartial judgment.

That is exactly what MS got from the Judge. Thank God, he is an
intelligent being unlike you.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           12-Nov-99 02:45:20
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on
11/12/99 at 03:52 AM,
   [e-mail] (Joe Ragosta) said:

> >
> > Findings of any type are subject to appeal all the way to the Supreme
Court.
> > Findings of Fact aren't edicts from Linus^H^H^H^H^HGOD and are subject to
> > human failings.

> But they are, in general, relatively immune to being overturned on
> appeal. Microsoft would have to show error so bad that no reasonable
> person could have reached the same conclusions.

> Since everything in the FoF was supported by one or more witnesses, it
> would be hard to demonstrate that.

Especially since virtually all of them were also accompanied by citations
of settled case law!


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           12-Nov-99 02:49:07
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/11/99 at 03:11 PM,
   Illya Vaes <[e-mail]> said:


> 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"...

Back in the 1950's, I had a classmate named Dick Burens whose father was
an executive of General Electric. GE, Westinghouse, and several other
companies were convicted of price collusion on electrical components such
as circuit breakers, etc. The corporations were fined quite substantially
and subsequently had to pay treble damages to competitors they damaged.

However, Dick's father and one executive of several of the guilty
companies spent time in Federal Prison! I wonder how Bill, Steve, etc.
will look in pinstripes!

> 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.

No, the simpleton you replied to wants everybody to be just like him, - an
incompetent idiot.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           12-Nov-99 02:52:13
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/11/99 at 03:31 PM,
   Marty <[e-mail]> said:

> 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.

Hmm. I seem to remember this defense. Where was it? Oh yes, at the
Nuremburg trials of the Nazi war criminals. Didn't wash then. Won't wash
now.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           12-Nov-99 02:54:00
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/11/99 at 09:14 PM,
   Marty <[e-mail]> said:


> How is the big picture of the economic impact irrelevant to the court
> case?

Because you imbecile we are a country of equals, not a country run for the
benefit of a few idle rich assholes. By your logic, bank robbers shouldn't
be held accountable. Insurance fraud should be encouraged.

You really are a stupid fool.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           12-Nov-99 02:56:09
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/11/99 at 11:43 PM,
   Marty <[e-mail]> said:

> I can probably sum up my response to this with one simple age-old, tried
> and true phrase:

> Two wrongs don't make a right.

You argue like a petulant 10 year old. 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.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                             12-Nov-99 20:55:04
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Stuart Fox" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer wrote in message <382bc7d5$8$obot$[e-mail]>...
>On <[e-mail]>, on 11/11/99 at 09:14 PM,
>   Marty <[e-mail]> said:
>
>
>> How is the big picture of the economic impact irrelevant to the court
>> case?
>
>Because you imbecile we are a country of equals, not a country run for the
>benefit of a few idle rich assholes.

Actually Bob, you do live in a country of inequals, run for the benefit of a
few rich assholes.

 By your logic, bank robbers shouldn't
>be held accountable. Insurance fraud should be encouraged.
>
>You really are a stupid fool.
>
>
>--
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
>Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
>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: Wave Internet Services (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                                  12-Nov-99 08:21:29
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Stan Goodman)

On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 03:26:20, larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) wrote:

> As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Stan Goodman write:
>
> > But it doesn't really matter. Even if he were doing business from an ice
> > floe, that would not be a license to run an abusive monopoly
>
> Somebody's running an abusive monopoly?  Who?

When you threaten people with severe retribution (e.g. "We'll cut off their
air") if they dare to patronize your competitors, that is an abusive
monopoly. Don't you read the newspapers? The recent court finding is that
there is a monopoly, and that Microsoft abused its monopoly position, for
that reason and many others.

It's late in the day to be surprised by that.

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

E-mail sent to [e-mail] 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: [e-mail]                      12-Nov-99 08:32:08
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:382bc767$7$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <[e-mail]>, on 11/11/99 at 03:31 PM,
>    Marty <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > 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.
>
> Hmm. I seem to remember this defense. Where was it? Oh yes, at the
> Nuremburg trials of the Nazi war criminals. Didn't wash then. Won't wash
> now.

You equate writing software to torturing and killing prisoners?

Bob... please... there are limits to what drugs can do to help - stop now.


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

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

From: [e-mail]                      12-Nov-99 08:32:08
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:382bbe76$2$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <[e-mail]>, on 11/11/99 at 01:28 PM,
>    "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> said:
>
>
> > > > 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)
>
> Absolutely. There is no reason that all dashboard layouts should be the
> same, similar, or anything else. Consistent design is useful only in
> schools for the mentally handicapped.

I/we are very honored to have you here, Bob, as a person more intelligent
than all the combined engineers at
GM/Ford/Chrysler/Honda/Toyota/BMW/Mercedes-Benz(the list goes on). It would
appear that the majority of the world is mentally handicapped but,
fortunately for us, we have you to tell us so. It's amazing how in a single
sentence you've manged to destroy what engineers and designers and inventors
and patent holders and scientists as well as the layperson knows to be
true - you are a pretty incredible guy. *I'll bet* somewhere down below
you'll start to give long lists of your history and experiences so we are to
bow before you and say: Wow, a guy who's done so much just CAN'T be wrong.
I'll bet!
>
> > >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 are changing the subject. I would suspect most of doing it
> deliberately, but you do not appear bright enough.
silly boy, fuck you too.

>In any event, I said
> the major pedals were analogous to the keyboard, mouse, and joystick. That
> should be and is consistent. I said dashboards, controls, etc. were not
> and that was a good thing.
No, wait! Consistancy is bad. Evil! It's where the mentally handicapped get
their name!Every thing should be different: "Consistent design is useful
only in
schools for the mentally handicapped." - Bob Germer
>
> > >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?)
>
> No, it is a very bad thing which leads to overconfidence and crashes. I
> have logged nearly 32,000 hours in over 100 types of aircraft in 40+ years
> flying.
I win! I win! I just KNEW you were going to mention having done something a
billion times over a zillion years!! yipee!!

>I NEVER begin a flight or even a flight segment without making an
> exterior pre-flight check and using the pre-flight checklists EVEN IF I
> HAVE FLOWN THE SAME AIRCRAFT EVERY DAY FOR THE PREVIOUS MONTH. I don't
> care whether it's a J-3 Piper Cub with no electrical system or a L-1011
> TriStar.
Wow - so you are saying that you basically do what every pilot is supposed
to do. It's part of flight school. You are trained to do this - I know I was
when I got my license 11 years ago. You do a nice and consistant check of...
wait! Stop! OH NO! Consistancy again! Evil! Bad! NOOooooO! we must vary our
routine or else, what, will we become complacent? Do you go through the same
pre-flight check and checklists every single time? Like you are supposed to?
Oh no bob, are you mentally handicapped?

>
> I have driven my current primary car, a Chrysler Cirrus LXI over 45,000
> miles in the 19 months I have owned it. I do not start it without checking
> the oil, looking under the hood, checking the tires, and walking around
> the car. I do not start it until verifying the position of every switch
> and control and making sure they are properly set.

Wait... stop reading. Let's give everyone enough time to wipe their eyes of
the tears from laughter.

.... wait...

... wait..

ok, we're ready... go on...

>I have done this with
> every car I have ever owned. In 47 years as a licensed driver, I have had
> ONE accident in which I had any fault, and that was when a cup of very hot
> coffee spilled onto my leg when I swerved to avoid a falling tree limb and
> I sideswipped another car in the process. I've been rear ended a couple of
> times, sideswipped by a drunk driver fleeing the police, t-boned by
> another drunk who ran a red light, and forced off the road and overturned
> by an out of control tractor trailer, but in none of those cases was I in
> any way at fault.
Well, we're glad to hear you are an excellent driver. How this relates no
one knows....

>
> In all my years of flying, the only damage I ever caused to an airplane
> was breaking the wooden propeller of a J-3 Cub when the oil sump split
> open on my fifth solo flight and I had to make a no-power landing in a
> soggy field. Within the last 3 years, I had an engine failure in a Cessna
> 172 while flying less than 1200 feet above ground level on a clearance
> into BWI (Baltimore Washington International a/k/a Friendship). I was far
> beyond the airport (about 7 miles) under positive control by BWI Approach,
> yet was able to divert to University of Maryland airport BECAUSE DESPITE
> FLYING THAT ROUTE AN AVERAGE OF 60 TIMES A YEAR, I knew where every
> possible emergency landing site was and that was because I NEVER fail to
> know where I am and never stop looking for emergency landing areas when
> flying VFR (visual flight rules) or when I have sight of the ground
> beneath and around me.

I am... so... fascinated. In fact, so amazed that... I just... can't...
keep... awake!>..
>
> Anyone who doesn't check the status of his or her car, its tires, its
> visible wiring, etc. before starting the engine is bound to come to grief
> sooner or later. Anyone who doesn't keep his or her head on a swivel every
> minute he or she is operating any moving vehicle is bound to come to grief
> sooner or later. Anyone who allows him or herself to be distracted by cell
> phones, passengers, the radio, etc. is going to have an accident sooner or
> later.

Let me help you here Bob:   "Anyone who drives a car or is in a car or is
near a car will have an accident sooner or later OR never."

Again.. this relates ... how????

>
> Well over 95%of my flight hours as PIC (Pilot in Command)
as opposed to, Pissed In Cockpit? Pilot In Canada? Puked In Coffee? What...

>and all of my
> SIC time is in aircraft in which radio communications and navigation are
> required.

Wait - what happened to that: "J-3 Piper Cub with no electrical system" -
were you the PIC or SIC (Senile Incompetent Commentator?)

>Pilots don't listen to music, ball games, etc.
Oh... really... damn, guess I'm not a pilot after all :( Wonder how I
managed to not ever crash?

>Nor do I in an
> automobile. I will tune in stations in the local area which provide
> traffic reports but only listen briefly at the time said reports are
> given.
Wow... really.. Personally, I like listening to music on my sound system -
because listening to traffic reports requires more concentration to hear
words and decern if they apply to you and your route and then recalcuate new
routes around altercations all of which reduces the amount of concentration
you have on the road and the environment around you. Unlike music which is
just something soothing in the backgroundand distracts you 0% Hmmm... I
sense a disturbance in the force...

> know where to find such stations in every major city along the
> Eastern Seaboard from Boston to Richmond. If I don't need those, I don't
> turn it on.
Good to know... well, actually, completely unnecessary to know... why ARE we
still going on and on... it's mesmerizing... I just can't stop..

>When I am not in an area covered by these reports, I don't
> turn the radio on.
Um, so if you are in an area not "along the Eastern Seaboard from Boston to
Richmond" then you do not care for local traffic or weather conditions? Are
you just psychic when outside of the eastern seaboard area? Neat!

>
> Familiarity breeds contempt and contempt breeds complacency. Complacency
> breeds errors.
Doubt leads to fear, fear leads to anger, anger leads to suffering... - yoda

whoops, damn, we got back on topic... ok, lesse:
Familiarity breeds contempt?! HUH? Where the hell do you get that?
Complacency breeds error - that does usually follow, yes. Forget the other
bits...

>
> > >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)
>
> Everyone should be back to square one when operating any piece of
> machinery no matter that be a computer, a car, a stove, an airplane, a
> boat, or even a hair dryer.
So, experience is meaningless. Whenever faced with doing something, wipe
your mind (young jedi) and forget what you know - start figuring it all out
all over again.

So, when you climb into your plane. Do you start with: "Lesse, which of
these makes the plane go up and down?" Do you play "pedal on right goes
varoom varoom and pedal on left... hmmm... appears to do nothing at this
time... I'll get back to that later... " when you get in your car every day?



>
> > >This is good? Hell no.
> > You disagree?
>
> No, I do not agree that consistency is good nor that a single operating
> system is good.

Yes, we know what you think of consistency: "Consistent design is useful
only in
schools for the mentally handicapped." - Bob Germer

>
> > <trim redundancy>
>
> > I tried again - are you ready to realize that we agreed on our points
> > but you choose to attack instead?
>
> NO, we do NOT agree. Complacency, boredom, familiarity, whatever you
> choose to term it is the underlying cause of most accidents be they in the
> air, in a vehicle, in the home, on a boat, etc.

Man, I was wrong and you are right. We do NOT agree. At all, not one single
bit. You are a nut and I'm done wasting my time.

>
<trim completely inane material>


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

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

From: [e-mail]                                      12-Nov-99 08:36:24
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] ([e-mail])

Bob Germer? ([e-mail]?) wrote (Fri, 12 Nov 1999 02:32:52
-0500):
>memory, one finds NT to be a very slow operating system. My old Pentium 90
>with 48 Megs of memory runs faster than the PII does when running NT.

NT, no apps installed, settles out at about 30 MB of RAM (just about
the same as OS2 4.0).  I know it worked fine on a K6/208.  OS2 video
is very slow, esp. with more than 256 colors.  Disk is slow, esp.
when the small 2 MB cache is blown out.  User address space is limited
to about 250-300 MB; a problem if there were any recent-vintage apps
that might want to use more than that.  USB support is half-baked
(literally).  Hardware support in general is poor.  Maintenance is
now, and has been since Warp 3 FP17, a beta experience.  Documentation,
if there is any, is terse.  I could go but then I'd just being saying
what has been said here every day (did I mention few apps?).  What
seldom is said here is, what ARE the good points in using OS2?  That's
a tough one to answer in the general case.  I'm sure there are a few
reasons (I have a good one -- I've got 40+ apps tied up in OS2-only
versions), but for most, there's no reason to stick around, and that's
why OS2 users are now down to 0.25% (1 quarter of 1 percent), which,
even that, I think is over-stated by 10x (because, well, what are they
doing/using?).


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

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

From: [e-mail]                         12-Nov-99 08:37:16
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Curtis Bass writes:

> Bennie Nelson wrote:

> -- snip --

>> I note here that only Dave Tholen has taken the time to respond to the
>> request.

> By now, you have seen that I did respond.
>
> Please note that only Dave Tholen took the liberty of "correcting"
> someone else's summary (namely, mine).

My response to Bennie did not include any correction of someone else's
summary, Curtis.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         12-Nov-99 08:38:17
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (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 wrote:

> Can't figure it out, Dave?

I see you failed to answer the question.  I'm not surprised.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         12-Nov-99 08:35:14
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Lucien writes:

>>> Here are two examples of invective from your "tests":

>>> "Yet more evidence that you're playing your own 'infantile game'.."

>> That's another rather blatant lie, Lucien.

> No, it is the truth.

Balderdash, Lucien, for the reason given in the next line.

>> That line does not appear in either simple test.

> You said it, nonetheless.

You claimed that the reason you did not respond to my two simple
tests is because they contained nonsense and invective.  I reproduced
the two simple tests and asked you to identify the alleged nonsense
and invective.  You deleted them and inserted something that was not
contained in either simple test.  That is blatantly dishonest.

> It is mere invective, designed only to divert attention away from
> the topic at hand.

Deletion of the two simple tests, which do not contain any invective,
is merely a tactic to avoid giving attention to the proof of why you
are wrong, which happens to be the topic at hand.

>>> and

>>> "...Or are you really that idiotic?"

>> That's another rather blatant lie, Lucien.

> No, it is the truth.

Balderdash, Lucien, for the reason given in the next line.

>> That line does not appear in either simple test.

> You said it, nonetheless.

You claimed that the reason you did not respond to my two simple
tests is because they contained nonsense and invective.  I reproduced
the two simple tests and asked you to identify the alleged nonsense
and invective.  You deleted them and inserted something that was not
contained in either simple test.  That is blatantly dishonest.

> It is mere invective, designed only to divert attention away from
> the topic at hand.

Deletion of the two simple tests, which do not contain any invective,
is merely a tactic to avoid giving attention to the proof of why you
are wrong, which happens to be the topic at hand.

>>> Apparently it won't mitigate your reading comprehension problem.

>> What alleged "reading comprehension problem", Lucien?

> Your repeated requests for clarification of my usage of the term "multi-
> level" indicates a reading comprehension problem,

Illogical, given that there is no explanation of your meaning to
comprehend, Lucien.

> given that my meaning is clear.

Obviously not.

>> I can't read what isn't there to be read.

> That you cannot comprehend my statements is obvious, yes.

Illogical, given that there are no statements containing an explanation
of your meaning to comprehend, Lucien.

>>>>> Nonetheless, let's try again.

>>>> Let's try again to get you to understand the flaws in your
>>>> argument.

>>> You've demonstrated no flaws in it;

>> On the contrary, I have.

> On the contrary, you have not.

On the contrary, I have.  You merely continue to delete the
demonstration.

> You've merely presented irrelevancies and childish invective

I asked you before to identify the alleged "irrelevancies and childish
invective" in either of the two simple tests, but you failed to do so.
You merely deleted them and inserted other text to hide from the proof.

> in an embarrassed, frustrated attempt to divert attention away from
> the topic at hand.

I'm not embarrassed or frustrated, Lucien.  That's a rather ironic
statement, coming from someone whose deletion tactic refelcts
embarrassment over the proof that you are wrong.

> Let's review the topic:

Let's try again to get you to understand the flaws in your argument.

> Here is your statement regarding the JDK sentence:
>
> "The word 'implements' does allow for either 'some' or
> 'all' functionality, in the absence of any other
> information."

See what I mean about your reading comprehension problem, Lucien?
I've told you several times now that the above statement does not
concern the JDK sentence, and I've also told you why, namely because
the JDK sentence involves the presence of other information.  Yet
you simply delete that explanation and repeat your erroneous claims,
along with deleting the two simple tests that prove why you're wrong.

> Note the description of an underlying ambiguity WRT quantification;

Note how it doesn't concern the JDK sentence.

> note also your correct contention that it occurs in the absence of
> "other information"

Note also how it doesn't concern the JDK sentence.

> Here is my thesis statement again:
>
> The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
> ambiguous WRT quantification in the absence of peri-verbal information.

Your thesis statement is irrelevant, Lucien, given that the JDK
sentence involves the presence of what you like to call "peri-verbal
information".

> Note the description of an underlying ambiguity WRT quantification;

Note how it doesn't concern the JDK sentence.

> note also the correct contention that it occurs in the absence of peri-
> verbal information, AKA "other information"

Note also how it doesn't concern the JDK sentence.

> Note also that your witless repetitions upon the point of absence of
> information only reinforce the veracity of these statements with regard
> to the ambiguity.

Having more reading comprehension problems, Lucien?  My point has been
the presence, not absence, of information.  How ironic, given that it
reinforces the veracity of my argument with regard to the absence of
ambiguity.

> Finally, note the agreement between the two statements.

Finally, note the irrelevance of your thesis to the present situation.

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

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: [e-mail]                           12-Nov-99 03:02:02
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on
11/12/99 at 03:59 AM,
   [e-mail] (Joe Ragosta) said:

> Yep. As I expected--yet another person who doesn't have a clue how the
> system works.

> The DOJ started this suit at about the time MSIE was bundled with
> Windows. It takes time to put a suit of this magnitude together.

Not to mention that MS sought and received well over 17 months worth of
delays. Of course Kindergarten dropout Marty can't understand that.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                         12-Nov-99 08:46:07
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (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:

> Uh-huh. I use *YOUR* analogy to illustrate my point,

Incorrect, given that I did not stretch the analogy beyond the point of
applicability.  You did.

> and that becomes "stretch[ing the] analogy beyond the point of
> applicability."

For reasons that I explained, Curtis.  If you disagree, you can always
try to explain how the analogy is applicable.

> I guess your analogies only apply so far as they "illustrate" your
> "points."

They apply when they are appropriate, Curtis.

> Like I have said, the fact that you received error messages from InfoZip
> (presumably, this is supposed to be analogous to your "burning out your
> light bulb" -- I'm confident that you will "correct" me if I am
> "wrong.") is not the issue as far as I am concerned.

Yeah, you'd rather divert attention away from the issue.

> The issue, as far as I am concerned, is that you posted those error
> messages as evidence to counter Mike's claim

In other words, I substantiated my position.

> (which happened to be a correct and true claim),

His "bullshit" response to Joseph is not a "correct and true claim",
and his reference to classes.zip is irrelevant, as the security
enhancements are contained in secma.zip, Curtis.

> and you did so without verifying the validity of said evidence.

On the contrary, my evidence is quite genuine.

> (That is analogous to "using your 'burned out light bulb' in an attempt
> to refute someone else's truthful claim that they could get their light
> working using a different method," whether you like it or not).

Illogical, Curtis.  Once a light bulb burns out, it's quite obvious
that it has burned out.  When an error message is issued, it is not
quite obvious that an incomplete file has been given as argument to
the unzipper.  See what I mean about you stretching analogies beyond
the point of applicability?

> Had you taken proper steps to verify your evidence,

What do you consider the "proper steps", Curtis?  Trusting a known
liar?

> the flawed nature of said evidence would have manifested itself.

There's nothing flawed about the evidence, Curtis.  The error message
is quite correct.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         12-Nov-99 08:51:17
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (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:

> Really?

Obviously, given that OS/2 Java 1.1.8 does implement Java 1.2
functionality, contrary to Timbol's "bullshit" response.

> Well, on October 29, 1999, you posted, "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?

> That is misinformation, Tholen.

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?

> Posting misinformation is an odd way to "counter misinformation."

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?

> Later that day, Mike corrected you, saying that your erroneous statement
> was "completely incorrect."

As I've told you, Timbol is a known liar, Curtis.

> And you replied "Balderdash, Mike."

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?

> Not only did you post misinformation, you defended it as well.

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 am not interested in excuses, nor in how you "logically" arrived at
> your erroneous conclusion.

You are interested in spewing invective.

> "Logical" or no, the conclusion is wrong, and hiding behind logic
> won't change that fact.

Hiding behind "inept" invective won't help your argument, Curtis.

> If what you are doing here is, indeed, "countering misinformation," then
> I repeat, "One can only hope that he's better at astronomy than he is at
> .. . . well . . . whatever the hell it is that he's doing here."

I repeat that I'm countering misinformation here, Curtis.  I stand by
my contradiction of Timbol's "bullshit" response to Joseph.  Perhaps
you'd like to deal with that issue rather than jumping at the
opportunity to call someone "inept" for no good reason.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         12-Nov-99 09:03:08
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 05:21:02
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (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:

> I am not interested in your excuses, Dave.

You are interested in spewing your "inept" invective for no good
reason.

> You never ran JAVAINUF.EXE in an OS/2 session to verify it's integrity;

I did run the other runtime environment in an OS/2 session and found
it to work as advertised.  I unzipped the other components and found
them to behave as expected.  Only one runtime environment is needed,
Curtis, thus there was no reason to run javainuf.exe and a very good
reason to not run it.

> you chose to believe the statement, "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?

> without verifying the statement either way.

On the contrary, I had the success of running javainrt.exe and the
failure of unzip on javainuf.exe, Curtis.

> You could have at least verified that one could even run the
> executable file in an OS/2 session before spouting off that
> one ***HAD*** to do that in order to extract the contents thereof.

I had already successfully run the other runtime environment, Curtis.

> You ***ASSUMED*** that your copy of JAVAINUF.EXE was intact,

Everything else I downloaded was fine, Curtis.

> and you ***ASSUMED*** that the InfoZip error messages indicated that
> one couldn't use an external unzip tool to extract its contents.

Illogical, Curtis, as InfoZip *is* an "external unzip tool".

> These assumptions were wrong.

They are perfectly logical, Curtis.

> You ***DID NOT*** verify the integrity of the file

Everything else was fine, Curtis.

> and you ***DID NOT*** verify the meaning/validity of the InfoZip
> error messages by trying a different external tool.

If I had used a different external tool, it would have also failed,
Curtis.  Would that verification satisfy you?

> Yet you still entered your data into public record as "evidence."

That's how it works, Curtis.  The scientific literature is replete
with examples of later authors finding different explanations for
observations made by earlier authors.

> I am talking about the entering of the data into public record as
> evidence, Dave, not on the original acquisition of said data.

That's how it works, Curtis.  The scientific literature is replete
with examples of later authors finding different explanations for
observations made by earlier authors.

> Do you always enter data into public record before verifying it as
> thoroughly as possible?

What do you call "as thoroughly as possible", Curtis?  I'd love to
repeat observations, but the committees that allocate time on
telescopes, for example, don't often go for repeat observations
simply for verification purposes.  You work with what you've got.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         12-Nov-99 09:11:21
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail] (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:

> Yes, indeed. Even my up front admission of ignorance isn't enough for
> our friend Tholen.

Your ignorance isn't enough for you.  You need to resort to your
"inept" invective.

> I mean, how "logical" is it to argue about something of which you
> have minimal knowledge?

Didn't stop you from arguing about me being allegedly "inept" despite
your minimal knowledge of what really transpired.

> It's funny that Dave refers to his four quoted lines above as "the"
> evidence,

I've presented more than that, Curtis.

> especially considering that it's out of date

Illogical, Curtis.  I could point to a 1921 encyclopedia that refers
to London as the capital of England, and you could complain that the
encyclopedia is "out of date", but so what?

> (note the use of "will include" as opposed to "includes,"

Note that the preview of the JDK was available at the time of that
article, Curtis.

> which suggests that the above sales pitch

On what basis do you call it a "sales pitch", Curtis?  The JDK is free
for the download.

> is discussing something that didn't exist at the time of its
> being written).

On the contrary, the preview of the JDK was available that same day,
Curtis.

> If you go to Software Choice ***TODAY*** . . .

..you'll still find the Java 1.2 functionality in the JDK.

>  . . . you will note that the first feature listed is "Security
> enhancements based on the Java 2 Security model."

One of the pieces of functionality implemented in OS/2 Java 1.1.8,
Curtis.

> That is the only reference to "Java 2" that *I* could find on that
> page.

Isn't it enough, Curtis?

> And I sure as hell ***AIN'T*** gonna argue that "Security
> enhancements based on the Java 2 Security model" represents
> "implement[ing] Java 1.2 funtionality," because there is just
> too damned much ambiguity all around.

What alleged ambiguity, Curtis?

> So, even if I took Dave's advice, I would still realize that my
> ignorance overshadows my knowledge in this area, and stay away
> from that aspect of the discussion.

Your need to spew invective overshadows your interest in the facts,
Curtis.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                         12-Nov-99 09:26:29
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: Amodeo digest, volume 2451495

From: [e-mail] (Dave Tholen)

Well, only one posting from Marty for today's digest, and he didn't
waste any time spewing invective for his "infantile game".  How ironic
that he referred to "reasonable people", considering how unreasonable
he has been himself.

1> This is precisely the difference (or actually one of many) between
1> reasonable people and Dave.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               12-Nov-99 10:44:04
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: [e-mail] (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn)

> Marty <[e-mail]> wrote:

[ ... ]

> 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.

Do you think <VBG> there are "innocent employees" to be found there?

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: [e-mail]                               12-Nov-99 10:44:05
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: [e-mail] (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn)

> "Lennart Gahm" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> To Jeff: The inflation in all scandinavian countries is about 1-3%.
> What inflation do you live under?
> I am from Sweden and our biggest problems are high taxes. But that has
> unfortunately not stopped Sweden from becoming one of the worlds most
> Windowised countries. The average technical level is probely equally to US.
> Sweden has next most celluarphone per capita, only Finland has more.
> Finland is another scandinavian country. The next thing on celluarphones
> are WAP, mostly developed in scandinavia.
> We only lack a BIG OS/2 population.

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
technological superiority of the USA. Many of the developments in USA-com-
panies is based on the efforts, geniality and creativity of people who moved
the-
re from the European countries, as well as from elsewhere in the world. But
for an
USA-egocentric like Jeff this is beyond his level of comprehension. What car
would
he have? A Chrysler eh Mercedes <VBG> or something built in Mexico or a
Japanese?

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: [e-mail]                               12-Nov-99 10:44:12
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: [e-mail] (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn)

> Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Sorry, Peter, you have it wrong here. DOS was written by an employee of
> Seattle Computer who was accused by Kildall of stealing CPM/86 from him.
> However, the person, now an MS employee BTW, showed that the did not ever
> have the code. Rather, he wrote his own software to do what the
documentation
> of CPM said a given command would do. Only the names of the routines
> (Command.com, Fdisk.*, etc.) were the same. The code was entirely different.

Hmmm . that is not what has been repeatedly explained in the trade-journals
and what jerry Pournelle wrote about it. The name of Gary was in the original
DOS-version because it was a straight (robbed IMHO) port of CP/M to QDOS
(which very fitting stood for Quick-and-Dirty-OS) working on the Intel
processors,
which CP/M did not. Furthermore you mention the settlement between Seattle
Computer (its receiver after a bankruptcy I think). But I seem to remember
there
was also a time that M$ went after the Digital Research "clone" of MS-DOS and
had to settle that without any payment and giving DR the full rights to do so
just be-
cause of the fact that DR would sue them for the rights violations of the
original DOS.

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: [e-mail]                               12-Nov-99 10:44:13
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: [e-mail] (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn)

> Joseph <[e-mail]> 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.

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: [e-mail]                                     12-Nov-99 05:29:20
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (Root of All Evil)

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 17:01:05 -0600, Vincent P. LaBella <[e-mail]>
puked on his keyboard to produce the following:

>> this is boring but please read and add flames

I don't do ASCII art.

>Hello

[ lots snipped ]

>Then I started my new job and I really didn't want to program anymore. I
>mean, I just wanted to use a computer to get something done like analyze
>some data or write a paper or check email, the web or whatever.

You mean you didn't even go to the bathroom anymore? You just sat next
to a computer and didn't do anything but analyze data and write papers
and check email and browse the Web? What a depressing existence that must
have been.

> It was at this point I came to the realization that maybe some of you
>have already come to.  If not you'll be there soon

[ *'s filled in with what they appear to represent ]

>        "WHO THE FUCK CARES WHAT OS YOU USE"

Apparently, anyone who uses the comp.os.*.advocacy newsgroups. Also,
anybody who needs their computer to do anything other than analyze some
data, write a paper, check e-mail, and browse the Web; anybody who
needs their 486 to serve multiple simultaneous users like a VAX, and
anyone who doesn't want to get their system 0wned by an ActiveX control
in a Web page or e-mail message, and anyone who wants to use GCC in its
native environment. This adds up to a few million people who care what
OS they use.

Oh, you said "who the fuck cares what OS *YOU* use". Again, anyone who
uses the comp.os.*.advocacy newsgroups, and anyone who wants to crack
into your computer (not a lot of known security holes in OS/2, but
quite a few security holes are known in more popular OSes like Windows
and Unix, so naturally, script kiddies will want you to run a popular
OS so their 'sploits will work), and if you're the guy who decides what
OS will be used by the people at the office, then a lot of your co-workers
might care also, especially if they do something other than fill out
spreadsheets. What OS *management* uses is a really big issue, because a
lot of people need computers that are compatible with the computers they
use at work.

>Yes, who cares what it takes to get the job done as long as it gets done.
>So use the simplest easiest default OS that comes with your computer and
>allows you to do all this and

>    guess what all you OS/2-ers out there

>            THAT MEANS WINDOWS!

Whether or not that means Windows depends on what "the job" is that
you want to get done. Of course, it's easy to see how you'd think
that if the only two OSes you've ever seen on the Intel platform are
OS/2 and Windows NT. There are some jobs that Windows NT just doesn't
allow you to get done.

>I know some of you are thinking why not use OS/2? However, it takes time
>and effort to put OS/2 on a computer, and it doesn't do anything
>special that NT doesn't do.

Doesn't NT cost more and require more expensive hardware than just
about any other Intel-based OS on the face of the Earth?

>In fact NT does more and has more software available for it.

That paperclip certainly does more than the OS/2 paperclip. I
mean, it sings and dances and everything! Why can't *it* do everything
for me?

>I mean on a daily basis the GCC compiler is updated and NT versions are
ported
>as well.  This does not happen on OS/2 I think the GCC that is available
>for OS/2 is two years behind the times.

The NT GCC (at least the only one I know of, cygwin) is insecure under NT
because it uses a world-writable shared-memory object to simulate a few
Unixisms whose abscense in Windows hurts the portability of Unix programs.
This means that if you want to write secure programs for NT and you want
to write them in C, you have to purchase Microsoft Visual C++, unless it's
already included with NT.

>All programming libraries out there have NT ports and OS/2 ports that are
>there are either behind or buggy.

I doubt that all programming libraries out there, regardless of what
OS they started out on, have NT ports.

>In fact, with the way the computer industry is today the OS won't matter
>anymore either.

Are you referring to Java? You'll always need some pretty hefty hardware
to be able to use it, so OSes are here to stay for a while. (Though,
if you have enough hardware to run NT then you have enough to run Java.)

[ *'s filled, again.. this time only two were available ]

>It seems the only thing that matters anymore is the Web
>and online trading.  What the FUK does this have to do with an OS
>anymore?

Online trading doesn't matter to me, so I guess your observation is
incorrect. I guess that also means that the people who use the Net
to try to sell things don't like me much, because there's not much
profit to be made off me over the Net.

>get with the times OS/2-ers

>        Leave OS/2

>                Its not that bad over-here in NT land.

>            Its not as bad as you might think.

>        It wont hurt.

>    Its painless.

>                Come join us.

>            There are lots of drivers.

>    Lots of software.

>                Lots of share-ware.

>    We are nice people.

>            We wont bite.

        Microsoft. Where do you want to advertise today?


            USENET sounds nice. *.advocacy better.



                Lots of unwitting people out here.



            People who wouldn't suspect...


        ...that this is an advertisement...


    ...posted by someone on Microsoft's payroll.

        People who have money with which they are willing to part.

--
If suicide was legal, would everybody suddenly
start killing themselves?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               12-Nov-99 09:40:02
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: Microsoft, Gates, and Giving

From: ro20 <[e-mail]>

Surely this newsgroup is about NT not Bill Gates?

Paul Coen wrote:

> In article <60th2n$mep$[e-mail]>, [e-mail]
(John C. Randolph) writes:
> > In <[e-mail]> [e-mail] wrote:
> > -> One Eyed Jack <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > ->
> > -> > Richard L Hartman ([e-mail]) wrote:
> > ->
> > -> > : If you believe the "charities of your choice" deserve more money,
> > -> > : start working harder so you can earn more and then give it to them
> > -> > : yourself.
> > ->
> > -> Oh, I love this oh-so sophisticated logic:
> > ->
> > -> WORK HARD = MORE MONEY
> > ->
> > -> So Bill Gates, who is worth 40 billion, works 2 million times harder
> > -> than your average elementary school teacher? Or 4 million times harder
> > -> than your average driveshaft factory worker?
> > ->
> > -> No, he probably worked half as hard and was 8 million times more lucky,
> > -> with a healthy dose of backstabbing greed for good measure.
> >
>
> Well, didn't he get a few million from Mommy as a little "start-up"
> fund way back when?  I doubt I'd have 40 billion, but I'd be worth
> a hell of a lot if someone had given me a few million a couple of
> decades ago.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     12-Nov-99 05:50:13
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (Root of All Evil)

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 15:46:21 -0800, Chad Mulligan
<[e-mail]> puked on
its keyboard to produce the following:
>
>
><[e-mail]> wrote in message
>news:[e-mail]...
>> 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.

>Actually the latest and greatest GNU (if there is such a thing) products are
>available on NT.

No, a couple of the latest and greatest GNU programs have been ported
to NT and distributed by people not associated with the GNU project.
One of them (EMACS) is so dependant on Unix OS features that the Windows
version is barely functional. I doubt that the latest Windows version of
EMACS is the latest version of EMACS. Most GNU programs are for Unix and
won't compile on Windows without extensive modifications.

>> 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.
>>
>
>You don't have to, if you'd actually ran it instead of ranting about it
>you'd know.

You're right, if you're willing to pirate Windows NT and suffer the
pain of trying to run it on its minimum hardware requirements. In that
case, you don't *have* to spend much money at all. Otherwise you need a
new CPU, a new motherboard for it, more RAM, a bigger HD, and a license
to install the OS. Then add the price of CALs.

--
If suicide was legal, would everybody suddenly
start killing themselves?

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  10-Nov-99 14:11:24
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: Tony Wright <[e-mail]>

Mirage Media wrote:

> Jeff Glatt wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > >Which is why IBM has that nice big R&D center at Hurley.
> >
> > IBM has "branches" all over the world. Nevertheless, it's an American
> > company.

Semantics aside, it "was" an American founded company but is "now" (and
has been for some time), multinational.....

> That makes sense. The USA is the leader in the computer
> > business.
Depending on the criteria used and given it's political,financial as
well as industrial resources one could obviously argue that USA is a
"leader" in many other businesses as well?
That does not automatically nullify the contributions of countless other
nationalities that both directly and indirectly assisted in that end nor
having said that, equally denigrate the worthy efforts, industrious
creativity and entreprenurial skills of American citizens themselves.
>
> Yes, they have centers all over the world....but do a good portion of
> their R&D at Hurley
>

A minor correction - Not wishing to further inflame a debate that is
bound to offend someone's nationalistic pride but where is this infamous
IBM "Hurley"? There are indeed a couple of Hurley's located in the
UK(Berkshire and Warwickshire come to mind) but I suspect you're
alluding to somewhere else in Hampshire perhaps?
The only only similar named and well known IBM R&D site in UK that I've
occasionally frequented during last 25 years is IBM Hursley!
H-U-R-S-L-E-Y.
Located a couple of miles southwest of Winchester (towards Southamptom
and Isle of Wight in middle of UK's South Coast).
Incidentally Hursley House was also the R&D home of Mitchell's
(Spitfire) Supermarine albeit a tad previous to IBM's occupancy by about
30+ years...   ;-)

Not sure whether "big" refers to "geographic size", number of employees
or something else :-) but if you exclude the acreage of Hursley Park
estate itself I'm not convinced it's exactly "big" compared to some
other IBM R&D Labs worldwide...... not that "size" is necessarily
indicative of either the quality or volume of it's products of course.
:-)

Also as the Labs (as well as manufacturing plants) are relatively
autonomous and bid competitively with each other for both missions &
projects  it's not exactly clear as to how "a good portion of R&D" is
actually defined in terms of either "content" or "cost"?
And why just pick Hursley? By what criteria is it more "significant" in
either it's "contributions" or it's "portion of R&D" than say
LaGaude,Vienna or countless other IBM Labs inside or outside of USA?
It all really depends on the perceived value and relative merits of
comparing countless theoretical,software and hardware mission projects
in numerous technology fields apart from those directly related to the
computer per se.

Undoubtedly all nations have justifiable pride in their own achievements
and contributions towards the transformation and progress of IT in the
last half of this century but to imply one is singularly infinitely
"superior" by simply discounting the efforts of the remainder  is hardly
a "tolerant", let alone accurate assessment in today's "global"
community.
With the collective creativity and active cooperation of multiple
nationalities then the origin of a particular "breakthrough" technology
becomes more a matter of convenience in it's location rather than
indicative of the alledged "superiority" of one specific nation?

Bottom line is that apart from isolated instances like Thomas Watson Snr
pioneering radically new concepts(at that time) in "personnel policies
and practises" that helped focus a "team" effort to develop the World's
largest Computer and IT services supplier it's now almost impossible
these days to definitively attribute the contributions to solely a
specific nation let alone arithmetically "count" all the diverse (and
thus dissimilar) parts of the total global contribution.

Otherwise we'll all be pointlessly digressing along the lines of arguing
various anologies like how much does America's superiority in it's main
M1A1 Abrahams battle tank owe to contributions from German supplied
105mm 4800ft/s main armanent and British Chobham armour plating?
.....who invented the Jet engine first and why did a "technically
gifted" nation like the USA still need French expertise in copper
cladding/sculpting when renovating their own Statue of Liberty in the
1980's, a hundred years after it's erection etc etc... ad infinitum.
While we're at it, let's avoid arguing who owed who most for what in WW2
Lend/Lease, reciprocal technology agreements, Bletchley Park ciphers and
Alan Turin's computer algorithms as well. ;-)

Rather it is the collective "team" result that counts and for that many
individuals of countless nationalities can be admired and thanked.
 --
Rgds Tony W   Email: [e-mail]

"humanum est errare: To err is human
.... and to fail is to be a Project Manager...
...but to foul things up completely needs a computer!"

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                       12-Nov-99 11:34:10
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: OS/2 drivers for Voodoo3 2000 video card

From: filippo sartori <[e-mail]>

use scitech display doctor os2 drivers...

Filippo

only 256 64K modes.
do not use 24/32 bit modes...

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: UUNET WorldCom server (post doesn't reflect views
(1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                          12-Nov-99 11:44:10
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: [e-mail] (david raoul derbes)

In article <[e-mail]>, Marty  <[e-mail]>
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.

By that argument, why should the window-washers, the janitors etc
be rewarded when the managers make the right decision, as they
clearly were?

You can't have it both ways.

When you join a company, you are casting your lot with many other people,
and putting your trust implicitly in the managers. At some point you may
have to resign on principle, and perhaps be unemployed or grossly under-
employed for a while. I've been there. I may be again.

It is highly unusual that a person has no choice but to work for a particular
employer. The janitors, window cleaners, etc chose to work for Microsoft.
They enjoyed the benefits of working for an immense, powerful company that
could easily afford to pay them well (though, knowing a little about the
company, I doubt that they did). But these benefits were not without risk.

Pretty much every employee made a choice to join Microsoft. If now that
choice turns out to have unfortunate consequences, so be it. That's life.
The Department of Justice means these people no harm, just as most of the
air force bombers meant no harm to non-combatants in the Gulf War,
Viet Nam, etc. But collateral damage (read: injury to innocent parties)
is inevitable. A greater harm would be done if Joel Klein sat back and
allowed MS to pursue business as usual, which in my opinion is business
a la Capone.

I agree completely with Illya.

David Derbes [[e-mail]]

>- Marty


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               12-Nov-99 11:44:03
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: does anybody actually use OS/2, and why??

From: Jim Backus <[e-mail]>

Joar wrote:
>
> I actually wonder about this.

I use it at home - started with version 2.1 about six years ago and
currently run Warp Connect on a 386 and Warp 4 on a Pentium. IMHO the
stability and multitasking are significantly better than the WinNT that
is the standard at my workplace.

The lack of applications compatible with the world at large is becoming
painful so a windoze platform is becoming a necessity but I intend to go
on using OS/2 as my OS of choice.

--
===
Jim Backus  [e-mail]
Systems engineer  Tel [phone] ext 2577

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                12-Nov-99 06:56:20
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (Jerry McBride)

In article <[e-mail]>,
"David T. Johnson" <[e-mail]> wrote:

-- snip --

>Trust me on this, cowboy, any current OS/2 user is VERY familiar with
>Windows and probably uses it already for various things out of
>necessity.
>

Ohhhh... I dunno' about that. I haven't used/worked with windows anything
since
version 3.1. In fact, I never really used/worked with 3.1, I ran dos and
DesqView up until I bought my first copy of os2 1.3. My ONLY association with
windows anything is... fixing it when it doesn't work or installing in onto
machines for friends, customers or clients.

So, I guess I qualify as an official "non-windows user".

>But you are advocating something else.  You want OS/2 users
>to STOP using OS/2.  Why?  Are you trying to "help" us?  If you have
>personally never used any form of Windows before, I would say Welcome to
>1999!
>
>Most OS/2 users probably keep OS/2 because they find it fun.  The ENJOY
>it.  If you prefer Windows, great.  That's what a CHOICE is all about.
>

Actually, everyone that runs OS/2, does so out of choice. Because it works and
allows them to work also.

--

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

*            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 |
|         [e-mail]             |
\----------------------------------------/

--

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                12-Nov-99 07:04:01
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: New sotware on the horizon!! Where's waldo(that is OS/2?)

From: [e-mail] (Jerry McBride)

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Jeff Glatt) wrote:
>>Bob Germer <[e-mail]>
>
>>On <[e-mail]>, on 11/10/99 at 06:51 AM,
>>   [e-mail] (Jeff Glatt) said:
>
>>> You have to wonder if IBM hires an employee to go around and
>>> surreptiously tape pieces of paper to the backs of OS/2 Advocates that
>>> read "Kick Me"
>
>>No, they pinned the one on your back which said "F**K YOU"
>
>Oh, that's the one IBM gave to *EVERY* OS/2 developer and enduser.
>
>And when IBM did, it was only the OS/2 zealots who replied "Thank you"

Actually it was the ditto copied sheet that MicroSoft hands out... err tapes
to
the back... of each and every ISV and OEM they make business contracts with.

The sheet very clearly says, "Kick me, I'm stupid, I have money to burn, f**k
me, beat me for the dog that I am..."

It's the same piece of paper that each and every buyer of MicroSoft products
are required to wear. The only reason that we don't see the paper is that most
are too ashamed to show it and wear it under their outer garments.

However, there are those that are most loyal to the MicroSoft lemming cause
and have reverted to more extreme measues and have had the phrase tatooed to
their asses... Upon doing so, they naturally paided for an additional user
license to MicroSoft and destroyed the paper copy... Rumor has it this tatoo
also bares an additional legal phrase that is a minor upgrade for the printed
material and it says, "Please use other door, this one is reserved".

--

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

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


/----------------------------------------\
| From the desktop of: Jerome D. McBride |
|         [e-mail]             |
\----------------------------------------/

--

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                12-Nov-99 07:17:00
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: difference between OS/2 warp server and OS/2 warp 4..

From: [e-mail] (Jerry McBride)

In article <[e-mail]>,
[e-mail] (Christopher) wrote:
>hai:
>
>       i really need some explanation here.
>       to all the OS/2 user out there, could anyone tell me that what
>is the difference between OS/2 Warp server and OS/2 Warp 4?
>
>       i am thinking of using OS/2 Warp 4 but what i have got from my
>uncle is OS/2 Warp server. are they the same and if it's not, what's
>the difference between those?
>

OS/2 Warp Server? Do you man Warp Server for Ebusiness? If so, it's warp 4.0
with many enhancements and the server module added in. If you mean Warp Server
as in LanServer 4.0, then it's plain old Warp 3.0 connect with minor
enhancements and the server module added in. Both server models can run smp,
both can run HPFS386, only WSEB has JFS. Wseb ships with java, LanServer does
not but can be added in.


--

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

*            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 |
|         [e-mail]             |
\----------------------------------------/

--

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

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

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net                            12-Nov-99 12:32:09
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: jansens_at_ibm_dot_net (Karel Jansens)

I don't think I made a single mention of the words "OS/2", "superior",
"NT" or "sucks" in the following post (*), so I guess it's pretty safe
to keep the crossreferences.

(*) Aside from the previous ones, that is.


On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 18:57:54, Bob Germer <[e-mail]>
wrote:

[snip]
>
> I have driven my current primary car, a Chrysler Cirrus LXI over 45,000
> miles in the 19 months I have owned it. I do not start it without checking
> the oil, looking under the hood, checking the tires, and walking around
> the car. I do not start it until verifying the position of every switch
> and control and making sure they are properly set. I have done this with
> every car I have ever owned.
[snip]

We were taught the same thing when I was driving trucks during my
military service (back in the good old days of the Cold War). I
thought it was a pretty silly thing to do; I mean: it was the same
truck I parked there the night before, wasn't it? What the hell could
go wrong with it standing in the futzing *garage* for ten hours??!

All that changed when I did my check-up one fine morning and found
that the nuts of the right rear wheel had mysteriously migrated during
the night (no foul play, just a tale of one mechanic and his J&B).

Never assume *anything* with a mechanical device, not unless you
actually like unpleasant surprises. I do believe over-standardisation
of user interfaces is indeed a bad thing. If you're using only one and
the same car/operating system/whatever, you'll have to learn the UI
anyway; and if you're one of the (un)lucky souls that regularly switch
cars/operating systems/whatever, it's best not to have them too
similar: the UI is only a small part and by assuming you know the
machine, based on similarity in layout of the UI, you're bound for
disaster alley.


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: [e-mail]                         12-Nov-99 12:36:15
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: does anybody actually use OS/2, and why??

From: [e-mail] (G. Wayne Hines)

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 21:25:42, [e-mail] (Joar)
wrote:

> I actually wonder about this.

Every day. It works well and lets me do what needs doing.

For internet-related functions: e-mail, newsreader, web browser,
ftp program, web-page editing, and graphics manipulation.

For busines-related: word processor, spreadsheet, database, fax,
and point-of-sale(actually a DOS program in a full-screen DOS
session)

The cost of obtaining the superior OS/2 package has been much
lower than obtaining similar functionality with Windows.

gwh

# [e-mail]                     G. Wayne Hines #
# Team OS/2                              Kentville, NS, Canada #
# I don't wanna work. I just want to ride on the train all day #
#     http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/w.d.hines/express.html       #

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

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

From: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          12-Nov-99 07:41:13
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, David H. McCoy said :

> In article <[e-mail]>, alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net
> says...
> >On comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy, Brad BARCLAY posted :
> >
> ><snip>
> >> Doesn't it bother you that you're now poviding monetary support
> >> to the company that forced that choice?
> >
> >It used to bother me a great deal but I've learned to be more
> >pragmatic and simply enjoy using the OS that works best for me.
> >
> >If that's what everyone else did, then we wouldn't be in this
> >position.
> >
> >
>
> Besides, MS did nothing to force my choice but provide an OS that worked
better
> for me than OS/2.

<sarcasm> No, actually MS has secretly brainwashed you into thinking
this, has turned you into a lemming, and programmed you to spread this
WinNT works better than OS/2 for some madness on usenet. Ever checked
your account balance and wondered where the extra money is coming
from.... eh MS salesman?? </sarcasm>

IOW, I agree with you entirely.

--
-=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: alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net                          12-Nov-99 07:41:00
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net>

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

> On <80fkf9$ola$[e-mail]>, on 11/11/99 at 03:46 PM,
>    "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > > 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.
> > >
>
> > You don't have to, if you'd actually ran it instead of ranting about it
> > you'd know.
>
> If one has less than a Pentium II at 400MHz and less than 128 MB of
> memory, one finds NT to be a very slow operating system.

That's just not true. I read your post earlier giving us your
illustrious profile on flying and driving experience and how
discipline and the appreciation of the greatness of lack of
consistency puts your head above the rest.

If your head is sooo much above the rest, how can you make such an
ignorant statement??????!!!!

> My old Pentium 90 with 48 Megs of memory runs faster than the PII does
> when running NT.

I assume your P90 is running OS/2 right?

While I'll concede and agree fully that a P90 with 48 MB of RAM will
run OS/2 faster than it will NT. I'll take the '...than a PII does
when running NT' part of your statement with the same credibility as
your initial statement.

Before using NT and while using OS/2 I used to believe these
exaggerations and this is why I was so surprised when I ran OS/2 on my
P200 with 64 Ram and then installed and ran NT on the same machine. I
initially was very surprised and then angry at being fudded.

I upgraded to 128MB of RAM because of OS/2 actually ( I was still
using it primarily ) and NT actually pulled ahead in my subjective
opinion. This was with my FUDed conception of what NT should be like
and my ill-feelings towards MS and their products, mainly win9x.

IMHO, I think you are grossly exaggerating just to make NT look bad
and OS/2 look good. Very unbecoming of someone with your claimed
credentials of discipline and exposure, Mr. <cough> Sir Bob Gerner.

--
-=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: [e-mail]                            12-Nov-99 14:02:23
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 10:28:26
Subj: Re: does anybody actually use OS/2, and why??

From: "DLO News" <[e-mail]>

It must be terrible to be you living in a world where people refuse to
realize how clever and wise you are, where all those idiots just carry on
using an OS that you have decided is no good. God, all those idiots, if only
they had had your gifts then they could see the light, and then they would
see what you see, and realize howe smart you are. Get a life, do what normal
women (I guessing here, I've never met a man called Kelly, just women - if
you are a man (and if so you must have had a hard time at school - which may
explain a lot) adjust the following as required) do - find a boyfriend, take
up aerobics, in fact anything to discover a sense of perspective. But, most
importantly, just try and realize that people are quite capable of making up
their own mind about what they want to do and how they want to do it.
Intelligent advice is useful but neurosis is funny (funny ha-ha) to begin
with and then it just gets boring or irritating depending; and you are just
becoming boring, not smart, not enlightening, not intellectually impressive,
not witty, not literate, just a bore.
take up hobby or something


Kelly Robinson wrote in message <80g0bk$[e-mail]>...
>Oh puhleeze...  let's talk about home computer usage.  Not ATMs, banks,
>brothels, or anywhere else not pertaining to home use - which is more
likely
>her point of view or are you proving one of her points that people still
use
>OS/2 just because they, for whatever political reason, don't want to switch
>to another OS?  After all, OS/2 is not all that great (just ask that input
>queue and buggy WPS) and IBM is about 50,000 times lower than OS/2 yet you
>OS/2 people still bother to use it.
>
>Totally illogical.
>
>Well, I haven't used ATMs in years.  But I log into an AS/400 using an
>emulator screen.  Does that mean I use the AS/400?
>
>John Hong <[e-mail]> wrote in message
>news:80fgj7$ct5$[e-mail]...
>> Joar ([e-mail]) wrote:
>> : I actually wonder about this.
>>
>> If you have a bank card than 9 chances out of 10 you probably
>> have used OS/2...
>>
>>
>
>


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

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

From: [e-mail]                             12-Nov-99 13:22:13
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 14:25:26
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: [e-mail]

In article <80gjgg$5i9$[e-mail]>,
  [e-mail] wrote:
> Lucien writes:
> > It is mere invective, designed only to divert attention away from
> > the topic at hand.
>
> Deletion of the two simple tests, which do not contain any invective,
> is merely a tactic to avoid giving attention to the proof of why you
> are wrong, which happens to be the topic at hand.

Wrong. Your "tests" can be ignored, given that they are composed of
merely invective and irrelevancies, and demonstrate nothing relevant.

> > Your repeated requests for clarification of my usage of the
term "multi-
> > level" indicates a reading comprehension problem,
>
> Illogical, given that there is no explanation of your meaning to
> comprehend, Lucien.

Wrong. My meaning is there and is clear. Its opacity to you is only
apparent, due to your reading comprehension problem.

> > That you cannot comprehend my statements is obvious, yes.
>
> Illogical, given that there are no statements containing an
explanation
> of your meaning to comprehend, Lucien.

Wrong. My meaning is clear. That you cannot comprehend the contents of
my statements is also clear.

> I'm not embarrassed or frustrated, Lucien.

Your arguments have clearly been frustrated throughout the thread by
poor research, lack of evidence and overall incorrectness.

> That's a rather ironic
> statement, coming from someone whose deletion tactic refelcts
> embarrassment over the proof that you are wrong.

Incorrect. I'm neither embarrassed nor wrong.

Let's review once again to see why:

Here is your statement regarding the JDK sentence:

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

Note the description of an underlying ambiguity WRT quantification in
the JDK sentence situation (which contains a phrase involving the
verb 'implements'); note also your correct contention that it occurs in
case "other information" is absent.

Here is my thesis statement again:

The "costly mistakes" and "implements functionality" situations are
ambiguous WRT quantification in the absence of peri-verbal information.

Note the description of an underlying ambiguity WRT quantification in
the JDK sentence and "costly mistakes" situations; note also the
correct contention that it occurs in the absence of "other information".

> Having more reading comprehension problems, Lucien?

You clearly are, yes.

> My point has been
> the presence, not absence, of information.

And, as has been repeatedly and untiringly pointed out to you, this has
nothing to do with the underlying ambiguity, which shows up as a 'some'
or 'all' alternation in the "implements" situation [[[[[[in case
the "other information" is absent]]]]]], [[[[[as your statement and
mine above both indicate]]]]].

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: [e-mail]                      13-Nov-99 00:58:29
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 14:25:26
Subj: Why can't it die?

From: [e-mail] (Khairil Yusof)

Just thought it kinda wierd.. decided to sneak a peak at the comments at Deja
News for OS ratings.

Almost every negative comment also had to add statements like:

"What? Are there still users using it?"
"Isn't it dead yet?"
"Die.. why don't you just let it die?"
"It should go away like the rubbish I take out!"

I dislike using Windows, but when I'm not using it, I don't care much about
what's happening in the Windows world or what happens to it.

But people who no longer use OS/2 or don't like it, want OS/2 to die and
disappear.

Why care about what happens to something that you no longer use?

It's kinda like stalking your ex. She/He is no longer part of you life, but
yet
you wanna see her suffer and die. =)

---

"A true friend knows who you really are, but still likes you anyway"
____________________________________________________________________

HTTP : http://hayai.freeshell.org         [external]
       http://fenner50.anu.edu.au         [internal]

ICQ  : 5783742

PGP Key Id: 0x6FFEFD7F
PGP Key available from public key servers

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               12-Nov-99 09:17:08
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 14:25:26
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On <[e-mail]>, on 11/11/99 at 09:14 PM,
>    Marty <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > How is the big picture of the economic impact irrelevant to the court
> > case?
>
> Because you imbecile we are a country of equals,

Guess that makes you an imbecile too.

> not a country run for the benefit of a few idle rich assholes. By your
logic,
> bank robbers shouldn't be held accountable. Insurance fraud should be
> encouraged.

Have you bothered to understand my logic, or are you just hurling insults?
Bank robbers do not participate in anti-trust actions.  They also aren't
responsible for employing thousands of people.  They also don't have a
multitude of vendors depending on their products.

> You really are a stupid fool.

That really hurts coming from you.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               12-Nov-99 09:21:03
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 14:25:26
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On <[e-mail]>, on 11/11/99 at 11:43 PM,
>    Marty <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > I can probably sum up my response to this with one simple age-old, tried
> > and true phrase:
>
> > Two wrongs don't make a right.
>
> You argue like a petulant 10 year old.

And you argue like a bigotted, foul mouthed moron.  What's your point?

> 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.  Perhaps if you hadn't taken my statement out of context, you'd realize
that.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                               12-Nov-99 09:23:27
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 14:25:26
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Marty <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer wrote:
>
> On <[e-mail]>, on 11/11/99 at 03:31 PM,
>    Marty <[e-mail]> said:
>
> > 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.
>
> Hmm. I seem to remember this defense. Where was it? Oh yes, at the
> Nuremburg trials of the Nazi war criminals. Didn't wash then. Won't wash
> now.

I didn't know the Nazis had to have job cutbacks on their janitorial staff
after being fined by the US government.  You learn something new every day.

Amazing how you're so bigotted that you can equate the employees of a
corporation to Nazis.

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: Time Warner Road Runner - Binghamton NY (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                           12-Nov-99 09:20:09
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 14:25:26
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <o4TW3.197$j4.4904@uchinews>, on 11/12/99 at 11:44 AM,
   [e-mail] (david raoul derbes) said:

> It is highly unusual that a person has no choice but to work for a
> particular employer. The janitors, window cleaners, etc chose to work
> for Microsoft. They enjoyed the benefits of working for an immense,
> powerful company that could easily afford to pay them well (though,
> knowing a little about the company, I doubt that they did). But these
> benefits were not without risk.


This part of the thread makes an assumption which likely is incorrect.
Given Gates' greed, I seriously doubt he employs a single janitor, window
cleaner, etc. If he did, he'd have to pay them benefits. If he contracts
with a janitorial firm, which many, many companies do, then he winds up
paying far less for these services.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           12-Nov-99 09:23:20
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 14:25:26
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/12/99
at 10:44 AM,
   [e-mail] (M.P. van Dobben de Bruijn) said:

> Hmmm . that is not what has been repeatedly explained in the
> trade-journals and what jerry Pournelle wrote about it.

Read the FOF. The testimony showing Pournelle was wrong and I have it
right is in there. Moreover, the case was detailed in depth in the Seattle
daily press when MS settled the suit which was by the owner of Seattle
Computer, not the receiver. It is also covered extensively in a book
called Hard Drive.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           12-Nov-99 09:25:10
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 14:25:26
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <lgQW3.1433$[e-mail]>, on 11/12/99 at 08:32 AM,
   "Drestin Black" <[e-mail]> said:

> > Hmm. I seem to remember this defense. Where was it? Oh yes, at the
> > Nuremburg trials of the Nazi war criminals. Didn't wash then. Won't wash
> > now.

> You equate writing software to torturing and killing prisoners?

No. As anyone who successfully completed nursery school recognizes there
are parallels which is what I drew. Moreover, my response can be heard in
a dozen criminal trials in any state in the US any day of the week.

> Bob... please... there are limits to what drugs can do to help - stop
> now.

No, Drestin, I will not stop pointing out how absolutely assinine you weak
attempts at argument are.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                                12-Nov-99 14:27:20
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 14:25:26
Subj: Re: How much longer can you use this thing?

From: [e-mail] (Mike Trettel)

On Thu, 11 Nov 1999 22:47:21 -0700, Mac <[e-mail]> wrote:
>What about Linux or Mac?

Give me substantive reasons for using either one over my present setup,
and maybe we can talk.  For your information, I have been using Linux for
close to 4 years now in a dual boot setup, and yet I still do the majority
of my work under OS/2.  This is not to say that OS/2 is "superior", but
instead states that OS/2 still meets my everyday needs better. Yet I
wouldn't want to not have a Linux or FreeBSD machine around-for some
things I really want a Unix style solution and/or mode of work.

Intel hardware is cheap.  It's not that hard to run multiple PC's with
whatever you want on them all networked together.
 >
>Face it, OS/2 is dead. I did the linux thing for several months at home.

What is with this "OS/2 is dead" thing, anyway?  Whole bunch of people
suddenly telling me its "dead", and yet it keeps working here.
>
>I don't need unix on my home network.

I do.

>
>The other choices are BEOS, WinBlows or Mac.

I don't trust people who have to use name calling as a mode of argument.

>
>I had a VERY bad experience where a supervisor pretty much said "We will
>be going to OS/2". He got fired shortly thereafter.

This statement is meant to prove what?  Was he fired because of this
decision, or because of something else entirely?  For that matter, does
this person even exist?

>
>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.  As to the "unknown
ententiny" (sic) called Linux, excuse me?  What could be more known than
Linux?  Just about everything in Linux is publically available and can be
freely consulted.  As an example, you can find the name of just about
every single developer who has worked on the Linux kernel along with their
actual source code from one revision to the next with little effort. You
couldn't do that with the MacOS, OS/2, or Windows.  Just what is unknown
about Linux, anyway?

>
>Mac
>
>--
>Absolutely no Microsoft products were used to create or post this message!

Nasty smelling fish.  Gotta throw this one back in....
--
===========
Mike Trettel    trettel (Shift 2) fred (dinky little round thing) net

I don't buy from spammers.  No exceptions.  Fix the reply line to mail me.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                           12-Nov-99 09:27:11
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 14:25:26
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/12/99 at 09:23 AM,
   Marty <[e-mail]> said:

> > Hmm. I seem to remember this defense. Where was it? Oh yes, at the
> > Nuremburg trials of the Nazi war criminals. Didn't wash then. Won't wash
> > now.

> I didn't know the Nazis had to have job cutbacks on their janitorial
> staff after being fined by the US government.  You learn something new
> every day.

> Amazing how you're so bigotted that you can equate the employees of a
> corporation to Nazis.

I did no such thing. I merely drew an entirely correct parallel between
the words of Nazi defendants and the suggestion of that imbecile who wrote
that the employees were only following orders and had to do what they were
told.

The crimes are vastly different. The defense is identical.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: larso@commodore.                                  12-Nov-99 14:32:09
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 14:25:26
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg)

As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Stan Goodman write:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 03:26:20, larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) wrote:

> > Somebody's running an abusive monopoly?  Who?
>
> When you threaten people with severe retribution (e.g. "We'll cut off their
> air") if they dare to patronize your competitors, that is an abusive
> monopoly.

But all companies do this!  It's called entering a partnership.

If another company doesn't enter into a partnership with you, you can
withhold things.  Like sales.

Microsoft is not required to sell their products at any price to any people.
If Intel doesn't want to do what MS wants, MS doesn't have to support them.
Microsoft isn't the babysitter of whining computer companies.

Your problem is that when MS says "do this or you don't get to buy our
product", it has success behind it.  You will in all seriousness reply to me
that because MS is successful it has to play by a different set of rules.

>          Don't you read the newspapers? The recent court finding is that
> there is a monopoly, and that Microsoft abused its monopoly position

But when the finding says "there is a monopoly", it means nothing.

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


--
Lars P. Ormberg     ICQ#:8827066
mailto:[e-mail]
The University of Lars:   http://www.ualberta.ca/~larso/

"The way you're bathed in light, reminds me of that night
God laid me down into your rose garden of trust and I was
swept away with nothin' left to say some helpless fool
yeah I was lost in a swoon of peace you're all I need to
find so when the time is right come to me sweetly, come
to me come to me..love will lead us, alright.  love will
lead us, she will lead us.  can you hear the dolphin's
cry?  see the road rise up to meet us its in the air we
breathe tonight love will lead us, she will lead us"
                            -Live, "The Dolphin's Cry"

--- WtrGate+ v0.93.p7 sn 165
 * Origin: Usenet: PowerSurfr - High Speed Internet (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                           12-Nov-99 09:29:25
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 14:25:26
Subj: Re: Jury scheduled to hear Caldera vs. Microsoft next January

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <[e-mail]>, on 11/12/99 at 09:17 AM,
   Marty <[e-mail]> said:

> Have you bothered to understand my logic, or are you just hurling
> insults?  Bank robbers do not participate in anti-trust actions.  They
> also aren't responsible for employing thousands of people.  They also
> don't have a multitude of vendors depending on their products.

I understand the logic. You don't. Engaging in prohibited monopolistic
behavior is just as much a crime as robbing a bank, stealing a car, etc.
The findings of fact clearly show that if MS doesn't settle, it will be
found guility of criminal actions. No matter what the criminal actions,
the culprits must pay.

If the father of 12 children who together with their mother depend on him
for their very lives is convicted of a crime, he goes to jail. The family
surely suffers. But the crime must be punished. Just as society will take
responsibility for the food, shelter, health care, etc. of the family, it
will take care of the displaced employees via unemployment insurance,
reeducation/retraining, etc. of those unable to take care of themselves.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           12-Nov-99 09:40:13
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 14:25:26
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <80gc4u$89s$[e-mail]>, on 11/11/99 at 10:30 PM,
   "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]> said:


> Not exactly, though in your limited scope you would conclude that,
> because you preconcluded that.  This makes this argument pointless, so
> end of discussion.

Except for one or two other idiot savants here, everyone else recognizes
this a a complete surrender of an untenable position.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           12-Nov-99 09:41:18
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 14:25:26
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <80h8dj$bcn$[e-mail]>, on 11/12/99 at 02:32 PM,
   larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) said:

> Microsoft is not required to sell their products at any price to any
> people. If Intel doesn't want to do what MS wants, MS doesn't have to
> support them. Microsoft isn't the babysitter of whining computer
> companies.

> Your problem is that when MS says "do this or you don't get to buy our
> product", it has success behind it.  You will in all seriousness reply
> to me that because MS is successful it has to play by a different set of
> rules.

Oh, my. Another idiot with no knowledge of Federal Law. It is unlawful to
charge different customers different prices for the same quantity of the
same product. Moreover, no one from a company, be it the corner candy
store or Microsoft can refuse to sell to some would be customers but not
others. MicroSoft learned this the hard way when its per processor
agreements were attacked. It learned that two tier pricing was found
illegal by Judge Jackson.

MS doesn't have to play to different rules. It has to play by the rules
which it has repeatedly failed to do.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                           12-Nov-99 09:47:05
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 14:25:26
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: Bob Germer <[e-mail]>

On <lQcsOA2OHfv3Xex0=[e-mail]>, on 11/12/99 at 07:41 AM,
   Hobbyist <alliem@_nospam_wtjam.net> said:

> IMHO, I think you are grossly exaggerating just to make NT look bad and
> OS/2 look good. Very unbecoming of someone with your claimed credentials
> of discipline and exposure, Mr. <cough> Sir Bob Gerner.

You are entitled to your opinion even though my tests and experience with
NT and OS/2 clearly show your opinion is wrong. With OS/2 I never can tell
when my Domino server is accessing a database which is on my main machine
at with I do my work. With NT, anytime the database on this machine was
accessed, anytime a fax came in, etc. the machine bogs down noticably.
This does not happen with OS/2 or even DOS/Windows 3.1.

Any tests of NT on a standalone machine are absolutely meaningless. NT is
not intended for the individual desktop, it is designed for networked
computers. It is a dog.


--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------
Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
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: [e-mail]                                12-Nov-99 20:19:15
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 19:52:27
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Mike Trettel)

On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 18:08:24 +0100, Martin Nisshagen
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>Stan Goodman [Verio] -> comp.os.os2.misc:
>
>» > Somebody's running an abusive monopoly?  Who?
>»
>» When you threaten people with severe retribution (e.g. "We'll cut off their
>» air") if they dare to patronize your competitors, that is an abusive
>
>Sorry, but that's very typical pure socialistic thinking bull.

Actually, no.  It's standard US business law.
>
>Physical threat != voluntary business deals.

A bit of a strawman here.  MS doesn't need to have been breaking legs
to be found in contravention of the law.

>http://www.moraldefense.com/Campaigns/Microsoft/Antitrust_FAQ/
>
>http://www.uniontrib.com/news/uniontrib/tue/opinion/news_1e9locke.html

Oh boy!  Dueling URL's!  It's not hard to find carefully written pieces in
support of Microsoft's position that are simply put, wrong.  I will
explain a bit more later...

>
>...
>
>http://www.byte.com/column/BYT19991108S0001
>
>Jerry's Take On The Microsoft Decision: Wrong!
>Decision neglects industry history

snip the entire Pournelle column....a simple link to it would have done
the job.  Anyway, I read the Pournelle column a few days ago, and reread
it again.  You know what?  He's wrong too, and for a simple reason.  This
line of thought was never presented before Judge Jackson.  Not only that,
Jackson's analysis was *quite a bit* broader than Pournelle's single
minded and narrow analysis.  The evidence presented before the Judge
concerned IBM's marketing after the time period in question (in the days
of consumer OS/2, i.e., 1994-1995) and MS's reaction to that.  MS never
did contradict that particular testimony nor did they really even try to.
They could have tried to introduce evidence similar to what Pournelle
talked about in his column but never did so.  Under the trial rules, it's
too damn late to bitch about it now.  Not only that, but it's not a point
that can be used for an appeal unless MS wishes to appeal on the grounds
of incompetent legal representation.  That's the damning thing about the
findings of fact-Jackson has simply cut off any such argumentation and has
settled upon a common set of legal facts that both sides have to deal
with.  It's not Jackson's fault that the DOJ did a better job than MS.

Another thing to consider is that the columns and opinion pieces being
written in support of the MS position are in fact totally irrelevant to
the case at hand.  The Judge is not and will not be considering these
things-period.  MS can make the FOF go away only by settling before the
judgement which is only a few months away.  Once the judgement is reached
the FOF will be assumed to be the accepted set of facts in the case.  Then
the only way to remove the FOF is to show that Jackson has committed some
sort of gross error, and that's not to damn likely since he went out of
his way to be careful.  The FOF is pure dynamite (like it or not) and is
probably worse than any potential judgement since it can be used as the
set of facts in other lawsuits.
 >
>FT -> comp.os.os2.advocacy (which these discussions better belongs in).
>
>Best regards,
>
>m a r t i n | n
>
>--
>Martin Nisshagen                 PGP 6.5: 0x45D423AC      K R A F T W E R K
:)
>CS/CE, Chalmers, Sweden          ICQ UIN: 689662          2 x 300A @ 450 MHz
>d4nisse-at-dtek-chalmers-se      home2.pp.sbbs.se/mn
home2.pp.sbbs.se/mn/kw


--
===========
Mike Trettel    trettel (Shift 2) fred (dinky little round thing) net

I don't buy from spammers.  No exceptions.  Fix the reply line to mail me.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  12-Nov-99 21:41:09
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 19:52:27
Subj: Re: Who runs this country?

From: [e-mail] (Stan Goodman)

On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 14:32:19, larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) wrote:

> As I stepped out onto the Stoop, I saw Stan Goodman write:
> > On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 03:26:20, larso@commodore. (Lars P Ormberg) wrote:
>
> > > Somebody's running an abusive monopoly?  Who?
> >
> > When you threaten people with severe retribution (e.g. "We'll cut off
their
> > air") if they dare to patronize your competitors, that is an abusive
> > monopoly.
>
> But all companies do this!  It's called entering a partnership.

=;-/8

I don't think the judge sees it that way. A vendor-buyer relationship is
not a partnership.

> If another company doesn't enter into a partnership with you, you can
> withhold things.  Like sales.
>
> Microsoft is not required to sell their products at any price to any people.
> If Intel doesn't want to do what MS wants, MS doesn't have to support them.
> Microsoft isn't the babysitter of whining computer companies.



> Your problem is that when MS says "do this or you don't get to buy our
> product", it has success behind it.  You will in all seriousness reply to me
> that because MS is successful it has to play by a different set of rules.

You could make the same point about Standard Oil decades ago; I'm sure
Rockefeller did.

> >          Don't you read the newspapers? The recent court finding is that
> > there is a monopoly, and that Microsoft abused its monopoly position
>
> But when the finding says "there is a monopoly", it means nothing.

What it means is that a monopoly does have to avoid restraining trade.
Restraint of trade is a major no-no in the US; probably in Canada too. If
you mean that the finding is not a verdict, you are correct; on the other
hand, it has a lot to do with what the verdict will be. In all probability,
Microsoft understands that much better than you do, and will make an
attempt to cut a deal with DOJ, which will probably be the best thing for
everyone concerned. The deal, of course, will be heavily influenced by the
(far from meaningless) finding.

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

Locking up a market is, in general, not permitted, for more or less obvious
reasons, which appear to be unclear to you. Wait until the verdict.

Restraint of trade is not competition; it is in fact anti-competitive. I
have not the foggiest notion what exercises you so. We all have to wait and
see how the case plays out.

I understand that it is your belief that a trader is permitted to do
virtually anything that does not involve bloodshed. That has not been true
for over a century.

I have to abandon this thread to others that have more patience with it
than I.

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

E-mail sent to [e-mail] 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: [e-mail]                                  12-Nov-99 16:23:19
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 19:52:27
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: Peter Ammon <[e-mail]>

The Lord Of Lemmings wrote:
>
>
> That's why it's important in PCs. It's amazing how otherwise immensely
> intelligent people suddenly become barely one step above drooling morons
> when they sit down in front of a computer.
>
> A call today at the Helpdesk: "I downloaded Eudora 4.2 from Bear Access
> [version control and software delivery software here at Cornell] but I
> don't know how to install it."
>
> Me: "Did it open Eudora 4.2 after you clicked on the button?"
>
> Her: "Yes."
>

So you're saying I shouldn't take that job as the Macintosh Bear
Access helper?

-Peter

--
The Shame Eliminator: http://shameeliminator.cjb.net

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                 12-Nov-99 20:54:22
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 19:52:27
Subj: Re: Navigator 4.7 is available!! OS/2 is behind again!!

From: Curtis Bass <[e-mail]>

Dave Tholen wrote:

-- snip --

> Curtis Bass writes:
>
> > Uh-huh. I use *YOUR* analogy to illustrate my point,
>
> Incorrect, given that I did not stretch the analogy beyond the point of
> applicability.  You did.

Well, I am going to be like you, Dave. Up until now, I have been
lenient, and have given you much undeserved leeway. You do not give me
any leeway whatsoever.

In this post . . .

http://x26.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=543337855.2&CONTEXT=942435129.2107048013&hitnu
m=11

 . . . you introduced the analogy when you said:

Tholen:  I posted the output from InfoZip, Curtis.  Nothing inept
Tholen:  about my use of InfoZip.  Do you call yourself "inept" when
Tholen:  a light bulb burns out after you flip the light switch?

Your analogy states that the light bulb burns out ***AFTER*** the switch
is flipped.  A light bulb can indeed be burned out by the application of
power. However, a self extracting archive file cannot be broken (i.e.,
have some of its bytes removed) by the act of using an external unzip
utility on said file.

At least, there is no record of such.

Your analogy is flawed, and therefore inapplicable. All past references
to said analogy are void.

> > and that becomes "stretch[ing the] analogy beyond the point of
> > applicability."
>
> For reasons that I explained, Curtis.  If you disagree, you can always
> try to explain how the analogy is applicable.

The analogy is inapplicable from the outset.

> > I guess your analogies only apply so far as they "illustrate" your
> > "points."
>
> They apply when they are appropriate, Curtis.

As deemed by you, it appears.

> > Like I have said, the fact that you received error messages from InfoZip
> > (presumably, this is supposed to be analogous to your "burning out your
> > light bulb" -- I'm confident that you will "correct" me if I am
> > "wrong.") is not the issue as far as I am concerned.
>
> Yeah, you'd rather divert attention away from the issue.

No, that is your forte.  You posted misinformation when you stated, "Yet
to look at the contents, one must have run the executable file and on an
OS/2 system to boot!"  I brought that error to your attention. You have
yet to acknowledge that error, but have spent the past two weeks
"divert[ing] attention away from [that] issue."

> > The issue, as far as I am concerned, is that you posted those error
> > messages as evidence to counter Mike's claim
>
> In other words, I substantiated my position.

Using misinformation is an odd way to "substantiated [your] position,"
considering that your stated objective is "countering misinformation."

> > (which happened to be a correct and true claim),
>
> His "bullshit" response to Joseph is not a "correct and true claim",

That isn't the claim to which I referred.

However, since you brought it up, you have yet to substantiate that "his
'bullshit' response to Joseph is not a 'correct and true claim'" in a
way that I would find satisfactory.

"Security enhancements based on the Java 2 Security model" is supposed
to translate into "Java 1.1.8 implements Java 1.2 functionality." I am
not convinced that it does. Even if it does, the statement, "Java 1.1.8
implements Java 1.2 functionality" is misleading, to say the least, even
if we "logically" conclude that only *some* of said functionality is
implemented.  There are simply too many levels of indirection, which
leads to ambiguity. And we are talking about one aspect (Security) of a
complex environment (Java), completely ignoring a potential multitude of
other aspects.

I am not saying that Java 1.1.8 doesn't implement Java 1.2
functionality. I am only saying that I am not convinced that it does,
and am not willing to argue either way.

That is one reason why I haven't "taken Timbol to task," Dave. I just
don't have enough knowledge, and realize that there are too many
intricacies, for me to speak intelligently on this issue. I know my
limitations.

OTOH, it's pretty cut'n'dried that "Yet to look at the contents, one
must have run the executable file and on an OS/2 system to boot!" is
incorrect. That is why I *did* take you to task.

But, rather than stand up and say, "I stand corrected," you take my
pointing out of your error as some kind of personal insult, and spend
two weeks diverting.

Frankly, I think you take any form of correction, or attention to error
on your part, as a personal insult.

And yes, your diversionary tactics were inept. Had you simply said, "I
stand corrected," you would have had no need to defend your error.
Defending an error is inept, in and of itself, Dave, regardless of skill
(or lack thereof) displayed in defending said error.

> and his reference to classes.zip is irrelevant, as the security
> enhancements are contained in secma.zip, Curtis.

Then why argue about it? Why argue over whether Mike can gain access to
the file without running OS/2 if the file is irrelevant?

> > and you did so without verifying the validity of said evidence.
>
> On the contrary, my evidence is quite genuine.

(Ahem) I said "validity," Dave, not "genuine-ness."

> > (That is analogous to "using your 'burned out light bulb' in an attempt
> > to refute someone else's truthful claim that they could get their light
> > working using a different method," whether you like it or not).
>
> Illogical, Curtis.  Once a light bulb burns out, it's quite obvious
> that it has burned out.  When an error message is issued, it is not
> quite obvious that an incomplete file has been given as argument to
> the unzipper.  See what I mean about you stretching analogies beyond
> the point of applicability?

I see what you mean, considering that you are doing as much right now.

If there is a bright flash, followed by darkness, the obvious conclusion
is that the bulb burned out just then. If there is only darkness, then a
burned out bulb is relegated to one of several possibilities.

OTOH, running InfoZip against JAVAINUF.EXE cannot cause JAVAINUF.EXE to
lose bytes (at least, there are no reports of such that I am aware of),
so the analogy is inappropriate, unless the bulb is burned out a priori,
which, again, leads back to "a burned out bulb is relegated to one of
several possibilities," because the only "error message" we have is
darkness, which could indicate a power failure, or a bad switch, or bad
wiring, or a missing bulb, or perhaps something else I can't think of
right now.

The bottom line is that there was no "bright flash" when you got your
error messages, so the real meaning of the error messages (i.e., the
broken input file) was unclear.  By analogy, the meaning of the darkness
when you flip the light switch, without the bright flash, is also
unclear. It could be a burned out bulb, but it isn't necessarily
obvious, and it isn't necessarily the cause.

> > Had you taken proper steps to verify your evidence,
>
> What do you consider the "proper steps", Curtis?  Trusting a known
> liar?

Proper steps would be

1) Running JAVAINUF.EXE in OS/2 to verify that it wasn't bad.

2) Once 1) was established, use > 1 external tools on > 1 platforms to
verify that external tools cannot extract the contents of a self
extracting archive.

3) THEN AND ONLY THEN use the error messages to substantiate your claim.

> > the flawed nature of said evidence would have manifested itself.
>
> There's nothing flawed about the evidence, Curtis.  The error message
> is quite correct.

I never said that the error message wasn't correct, Dave, but using it
as evidence, without really knowing what it's telling you, does justify
my language; the evidence does have a flawed nature about it.


Curtis

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  12-Nov-99 15:23:19
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 19:52:27
Subj: Re: bye-bye os/2

From: "Charles Turner" <[e-mail]>

On Tue, 9 Nov 1999 20:43:04 -0600, Kelly Robinson wrote:

>Our opinions differ slightly, but the end result is the same.  OS/2 is dead.

Unfortunately (for some folks) software doesn't rust.

My new Dell GX1 is doing fine under Warp4. I used the RSU process to
bring it up to current software levels. The ATAPI Zip drive works fine.
Netscape 4.61 is fine. WPS ftp objects, et al,  are still missing from Win-
whatever as far as I know. I'm accessing a Netware NDS server,
doing postscript printing, handling Word and Excell documents with
Star Office, IMAP Email into an Exchange PO, ie. all the office stuff I need
to do.

I was amused when today's daily Email from one of the PC mags
talked about how a boot a day keeps one's Win PC in good
condition (I go for weeks between reboots).

Etc., etc.

Dead doesn't seem so bad...




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

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

From: [e-mail]                                12-Nov-99 22:55:23
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 19:52:27
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (James Himmelman)

On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 02:26:50, David H. McCoy <[e-mail]>
wrote:
> That's because facts don't have a place in the new c.o.o.a. Uneducated
> statements and outright lying are the new tools.
> ---------------------------------------
> David H. McCoy
> dmccoy@EXTRACT_THIS_mnsinc.com
> ---------------------------------------

Your posts certainly prove that.

[[[ James Himmelman - [e-mail] ]]]

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                 12-Nov-99 18:01:19
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 19:52:27
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: [e-mail] (The Lord Of Lemmings)

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] wrote:

>The Lord Of Lemmings wrote:
>>
>>
>> That's why it's important in PCs. It's amazing how otherwise immensely
>> intelligent people suddenly become barely one step above drooling morons
>> when they sit down in front of a computer.
>>
>> A call today at the Helpdesk: "I downloaded Eudora 4.2 from Bear Access
>> [version control and software delivery software here at Cornell] but I
>> don't know how to install it."
>>
>> Me: "Did it open Eudora 4.2 after you clicked on the button?"
>>
>> Her: "Yes."
>>
>
>So you're saying I shouldn't take that job as the Macintosh Bear
>Access helper?
>
>-Peter

No, take it, it's lots of fun.  I laughed MAO after that call.

--
|        Scientia Claus, Lord Of Lemmings <[e-mail]>          |
|"The Library is a sphere whose exact center is any one of its hexagons|
|   and whose circumference is inaccessible." -- Jorge Luis Borges     |
|"One feels as if one is dissolved and merged into nature." -- Einstein|

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                  12-Nov-99 18:24:28
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 21:25:08
Subj: Re: Microsoft and OS/2 Software...

From: fmc <[e-mail]>

Thomas Galley wrote:

> Hey!
>
> It has nothing to do with the american military, but with military in
> general. I think it kind of strange that what is now perceived by many
> as an anarchist medium (sorry for the big words) has its origins in the
> military.

The fact is, many technological advances that were developed by or for the
military have
found their way into civilian society.  Some of this technology, like
automatic weapons,
C4 explosive, and  even the Internet, can be used for destructive purposes, so
it should
come as no surprise that it would appeal to anarchists.

> I say again, I wanted in no way insult the american army, though there
> sure did happen a lot of things after WW2 that they should not be too
> proud of.

Yeah.  They may never get over the shame of  having to put American troops
under united
nations command.

fmc

>
>
> Sincere greetings
>
> Thomas
>
> fmc wrote:
> >
> > Thomas Galley wrote:
> >
> > > Hey!
> > >
> > > The internet may have started as an american military research project
> > > (beurk!!!), but it became "the Internet" just after Europeans in Geneva
> > > (ever heard of Tim Berners-Lee) invented the WWW, mind you!
> >
> > Beurk?  Are you tossing your cookies because the American Military played
a pivotal
> > role in saving Europe from itself in 2 World Wars?  Was it their role in
> > preventing a post war communist takeover of the entire continent, or has
the
> > collapse of the  totalitarian regimes of Eastern Europe and the USSR led
to your
> > stomach upset?
> >
> > fmc
>
> --
> PIRONET INTRANET AG
> Thomas Paul Galley, MA (CCNA) - Internet/Intranet Trainee
> Im Mediapark 5 - 50670 Köln
> Tel.: [phone] - FAX: [phone]
> mailto:[e-mail] - http://www.pironet.com
> certified professional Java Programmer (see link below)
> http://www.tekmetrics.com/transcript.shtml?pid=57102

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

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

From: [e-mail]                                12-Nov-99 23:29:00
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 21:25:08
Subj: Re: Bye-Bye OS/2

From: [e-mail] (James Himmelman)

On Fri, 12 Nov 1999 08:36:49, [e-mail] ([e-mail]) wrote:
> why OS2 users are now down to 0.25% (1 quarter of 1 percent), which,
> even that, I think is over-stated by 10x (because, well, what are they
> doing/using?).

What are they doing/using? If that is a serious question, then you are
completely ignorant about OS/2. I have full access to the net,
including web, email, and newsgroups using excellent OS/2 native apps.
I have access to online banking and stock trading using OS/2 apps and
the banks and brokers JAVA apps (the same JAVA apps that Windows users
access their accounts with). I use a scanner, Digital camera, desktop
PCMCIA reader, and photo printer - all with native OS/2 software - for
fun with digital photography. I archive my photo's to CD's using a CD
recorder along with OS/2 native CD-R software. I have two full office
suites installed - Lotus Smartsuite, and Star Office, as well as
Faxworks, for a full complement of productivity applications. I use
the PIM that came with OS/2 (my wife wishes there was a version for
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.

By the way, it all runs and looks great on this PentiumPro 200 with
96meg RAM, 19" Sony 400PS, at 1280X1024X24bit color at 85Hz.

[[[ James Himmelman - [e-mail] ]]]

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

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

From: [e-mail]                               12-Nov-99 17:41:26
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 21:25:08
Subj: Re: PM on Windows?

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

If the WPS comes with that System Input Queue, forget it.

The difference between OS/2's SIQ and Windows NT's is fairly obvious.

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

Jack Troughton <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail].
net...
> Hmmm... I saw something on the Mercury news today that sounds quite
> interesting...
>
> ------------>Begin<---------------
>
> Several methods of accomplishing that goal have been under
> consideration.  One would spawn different companies out of today's
> behemoth Microsoft.  Each of these ``Baby Bills'' (alluding to
> co-founder Bill Gates and AT&T's Baby Bells), would have the right to
> sell versions of the Microsoft's operating system.
>
> Another approach would be to simply force Microsoft to let outside
> companies sell their own copy of the Windows operating system.  These
> companies would likely tinker with the ``front end'' of the operating
> system, making it look different or providing certain enhanced
> functions, in an attempt to differentiate their product.  But the
> products would all be based on the same open standard for the core of
> the Windows operating system, which Microsoft would be required to
> share.
>
> ---------->End<------------------
>
> Or maybe port the WPS to the Win2k kernel, allowing a warp desktop
> next to a windows desktop.
>
> Or a windows desktop next to a warp desktop.  Perhaps putting win32 as
> a desktop on the warp kernel to run in a fullscreen session (similarly
> to how X runs under warp currently) would be very cool.  As I
> understand it, the WSeB kernel shouldn't have any structural problems
> running win32 (ie- memory limits etc.)
>
> That sounds very interesting indeed.
>
> Jack Troughton   ICQ:7494149
> http://jakesplace.dhs.org
> jack.troughton at videotron.ca
> jake at jakesplace.dhs.org
> Montr,al PQ Canada
>


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

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

From: [e-mail]...               12-Nov-99 18:26:07
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 21:25:08
Subj: Re: Why can't it die?

Message sender: [e-mail]

From: "Mike Ruskai" <[e-mail]>

On 13 Nov 1999 00:58:59 +1000, Khairil Yusof wrote:

>Just thought it kinda wierd.. decided to sneak a peak at the comments at Deja

>News for OS ratings.
>
>Almost every negative comment also had to add statements like:
>
>"What? Are there still users using it?"
>"Isn't it dead yet?"
>"Die.. why don't you just let it die?"
>"It should go away like the rubbish I take out!"
>
>I dislike using Windows, but when I'm not using it, I don't care much about
>what's happening in the Windows world or what happens to it.
>
>But people who no longer use OS/2 or don't like it, want OS/2 to die and
>disappear.
>
>Why care about what happens to something that you no longer use?
>
>It's kinda like stalking your ex. She/He is no longer part of you life, but
yet
>you wanna see her suffer and die. =)

It's a common psychological need.  People abandon OS/2, because they
convince themselves that they have to, whether or not they actually do.

That is, they think they convince themselves.  In reality, they're not
convinced that they did the correct thing, so they belittle people who
haven't made the same choice.  The death of OS/2 - the removal of their
ability to choose to use it - is the only way they can convince themselves
that they made the correct choice.  That is, having no choice is how they
determine that the correct choice has been made.

It's a need that goes far beyond operating systems, of course, as you
clearly allude to with the rejection of a spouse.

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..."

This manner of "choice" is also known as Hobson's Choice, after an
Englishman who ran a stable, and offered all his customers their choice of
horse.  When brought to the stable, what they had to choose from what a
single horse.

Ironically enough, in complete ignorance of this phrase, my cousin opened
a bar in Hoboken, NJ by the name of Hobson's Choice (Hobson being his last
name).  It's the one and only bar a person sees upon exiting the PATH
station from NYC at day's end.  Needless to say, he's doing quite well.


--
 - Mike

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


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

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

From: [e-mail]                               12-Nov-99 17:54:18
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 21:25:08
Subj: Re: How much longer can you use this thing?

From: "Kelly Robinson" <[e-mail]>

Oh, hi Mac.

Charles Turner <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:[e-mail]...
> 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: http://extra.newsguy.com (1:109/42)

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

From: [e-mail]                      12-Nov-99 17:02:28
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 21:25:08
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

ZnU <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:znu-1211990144260001@192.168.0.2...
> In article <80g3oj$4l1$[e-mail]>, "Chad Mulligan"
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
<trimmed>
> >
> > That shouldn't be difficult in this case.
>
> Please quote specific sections of the document you believe to be clearly
> erroneous and explain why you believe they are not. Until you do this you
> have exactly nothing zero credibility.
>

Read J. Pournelle's article it sums it up better than I can.

<trimmed>
>
> Yes, you're right. I'm _sure_ that high-level executives of many of the
> world's top tech companies got up and risked both the wrath of Microsoft
> and _perjury charges_ to tell lies. And all those internal MS documents
> were DoJ forgeries too, right? And the doctored video, well, the tape was
> switched on MS! By Steve Jobs himself! This isn't a case of a company
> exploiting its market power to maintain a monopoly at all! It's just a
> _vast conspiracy_ to bring down MS!
>
> On the other hand, everything _Microsoft_ says must be totally true,
> because Microsoft doesn't have _any_ bias at all in this case, right?
>

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.

> --
> 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 <[e-mail]> | <http://znu.dhs.org>


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



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

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

From: [e-mail]                                     13-Nov-99 01:07:09
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 21:25:08
Subj: Re: Why can't it die?

From: "David D. Huff Jr." <[e-mail]>

Mike you have great insight! Said another way "I cannot live up to your
standard, so
come down to mine or I'll hate you and the car you drive?" You are so close to
the
truth. Feel sorry for them and pitty them they have worshiped so long at the
alter
of the "bGATEs of ..." well you know.

Mike Ruskai wrote:

> On 13 Nov 1999 00:58:59 +1000, Khairil Yusof wrote:
>
> >Just thought it kinda wierd.. decided to sneak a peak at the comments at
Deja
> >News for OS ratings.
> >
> >Almost every negative comment also had to add statements like:
> >
> >"What? Are there still users using it?"
> >"Isn't it dead yet?"
> >"Die.. why don't you just let it die?"
> >"It should go away like the rubbish I take out!"
> >
> >I dislike using Windows, but when I'm not using it, I don't care much about
> >what's happening in the Windows world or what happens to it.
> >
> >But people who no longer use OS/2 or don't like it, want OS/2 to die and
> >disappear.
> >
> >Why care about what happens to something that you no longer use?
> >
> >It's kinda like stalking your ex. She/He is no longer part of you life, but
yet
> >you wanna see her suffer and die. =)
>
> It's a common psychological need.  People abandon OS/2, because they
> convince themselves that they have to, whether or not they actually do.
>
> That is, they think they convince themselves.  In reality, they're not
> convinced that they did the correct thing, so they belittle people who
> haven't made the same choice.  The death of OS/2 - the removal of their
> ability to choose to use it - is the only way they can convince themselves
> that they made the correct choice.  That is, having no choice is how they
> determine that the correct choice has been made.
>
> It's a need that goes far beyond operating systems, of course, as you
> clearly allude to with the rejection of a spouse.
>
> 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..."
>
> This manner of "choice" is also known as Hobson's Choice, after an
> Englishman who ran a stable, and offered all his customers their choice of
> horse.  When brought to the stable, what they had to choose from what a
> single horse.
>
> Ironically enough, in complete ignorance of this phrase, my cousin opened
> a bar in Hoboken, NJ by the name of Hobson's Choice (Hobson being his last
> name).  It's the one and only bar a person sees upon exiting the PATH
> station from NYC at day's end.  Needless to say, he's doing quite well.
>
> --
>  - Mike
>
> Remove 'spambegone.net' and reverse to send e-mail.

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

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

From: [e-mail]                      12-Nov-99 17:10:29
  To: All                                               12-Nov-99 21:25:08
Subj: Re: Judge Jackson Rules MacOS, Linux Not Commecially Viable!

From: "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]>

Bob Germer <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:382c26fe$6$obot$[e-mail]...
> On <80gc4u$89s$[e-mail]>, on 11/11/99 at 10:30 PM,
>    "Chad Mulligan" <[e-mail]> said:
>
>
> > Not exactly, though in your limited scope you would conclude that,
> > because you preconcluded that.  This makes this argument pointless, so
> > end of discussion.
>
> Except for one or two other idiot savants here, everyone else recognizes
> this a a complete surrender of an untenable position.
>

The untenable position of attempting protected mode programming on an 8088.
The processors aren't up to the processes.

>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
> Bob Germer from Mount Holly, NJ - E-mail: [e-mail]
> Proudly running OS/2 Warp 4.0 w/ FixPack 12
> MR/2 Ice Registration Number 67
> Aut Pax Aut Bellum
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------
>


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


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

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

+============================================================================+