Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".

-- 
No matter what you believe, no government is what you think it is.

On Lørdag 3. april 2010 06.21, Alex Stubbins wrote:

> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".

It didn't. 

It became a very useful OS in the late 1990s, and in June 2001 it turned 
into a cancer, according to Steve Ballmer.

If anyone considers it a religion, it must be Microsoft et al, who considers 
it black satanism and tries to exorcise it any way they can, with methods 
legal and illegal. 

On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:21:14 -0700, Alex Stubbins wrote:

> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".

The same way Apple did?

-- 
Rick

On Apr 3, 9:21=A0am, Alex Stubbins <darklinkx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".
>
> --
> No matter what you believe, no government is what you think it is.



Then what you say about the  "<@# MS #@>

On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:21:14 -0700, Alex Stubbins wrote:

> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".

What you mean, of course, is how did WinTrolling on COLA become a cult? 
The answer is, I don't know. How do any cults start -- weak minds 
willingly parroting half-wits, seems to be the norm. 

-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

>What you mean, of course, is how did WinTrolling on COLA become a cult? 
>The answer is, I don't know. How do any cults start -- weak minds 
>willingly parroting half-wits, seems to be the norm. 


It's not "WinTrolling", it's making sure you clowns can't lie about
Windows without being challenged on it, fuckface.  Stop whining.

-- 
Joel Crump

Joel wrote:

> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>What you mean, of course, is how did WinTrolling on COLA become a cult?
>>The answer is, I don't know. How do any cults start -- weak minds
>>willingly parroting half-wits, seems to be the norm.
> 
> 
> It's not "WinTrolling", it's making sure you clowns can't lie about
> Windows without being challenged on it, fuckface.  Stop whining.
> 

You mean "no viruses caught ever" and similar lies from your filthy ilk?
-- 
Just out of curiosity does this actually mean something or have some
of the few remaining bits of your brain just evaporated?

Peter K�hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

>> It's not "WinTrolling", it's making sure you clowns can't lie about
>> Windows without being challenged on it, fuckface.  Stop whining.
>
>You mean "no viruses caught ever" and similar lies from your filthy ilk?


Hey, look, if Windows defenders lie, they should be challenged on it
also.  I haven't ever been infected with malware, personally, but I
certainly am not claiming that it's not a serious problem for Windows
as a platform.  If people are going so far as to claim that, I too
will call them on it.  However, I haven't seen people claiming that.
In fact, DFS freely admitted getting two infections, just recently.

I take a balanced approach.  I like Windows, but I have criticized
certain aspects of it, such as AutoPlay just recently, and I have
*zealously* attacked Microsoft Office, and proclaimed my preference
for OpenOffice, multiple times (just the other day, in
alt.windows7.general, a Linux user added microsoft.public.outlook to a
thread, and I dissed MSO right there in that part of the thread - I
make no bones about my hatred of it).

-- 
Joel Crump

And verily, didst Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> hastily babble thusly:
> I take a balanced approach.  I like Windows, but I have criticized
> certain aspects of it, such as AutoPlay just recently, and I have
> *zealously* attacked Microsoft Office, and proclaimed my preference
> for OpenOffice, multiple times (just the other day, in
> alt.windows7.general, a Linux user added microsoft.public.outlook to a
> thread, and I dissed MSO right there in that part of the thread - I
> make no bones about my hatred of it).
> 
So what are these lies you accuse the linux side of making then?
Or are you just taking the word of hadron, doofy and their ilk that such
lies are commonplace without checking?

Cos a lot of what they CLAIM to be lies are just them calling "LIAR" for the
sake of it.
-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   |                                                 |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   | "ARSE! GERLS!! DRINK! DRINK! DRINK!!!"          |
|            in            | "THAT WOULD BE AN ECUMENICAL MATTER!...FECK!!!! |
|     Computer Science     | - Father Jack in "Father Ted"                   |

On Apr 3, 12:21=A0am, Alex Stubbins <darklinkx...@gmail.com> wrote:

A very interesting question, that deserves an interesting answer.

> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".

Yes, when you hear Linux advocates talking about Linux, and comparing
it to Microsoft products, it almost does seem like there is an almost
religious ferver around Linux.

In reality, Linux is just a rallying point for something that has been
going on since the 1960s.

When John F Kennedy announced that America would put a man on the
moon, he actually created an even more interesting challenge.  Instead
of putting the space program under control of the military, the
project was put under NASA, which was chartered as a civilian agency.
As a result, the publicly funded projects required that the technology
used and the research funded be made available to the public.  The
work could not be patented, or could only be patented defensively.
Software copyrights were still very ambiguous and since software was
merely algorythms, it was not possible to patent software.  The
government funded a great deal of computer technology research
including a great deal of software.

In addition to NASA, the DOD established ARPA, the Advanced Research
Projects Agency, which was essentially chartered with coming up with a
communications network that could survive a nuclear attack.  This was
also the agency that came up with such technology as TCP/IP.

Much of this government funded research, along with software for
hundreds of other government projects, were placed into a public
repository known as SIMTEL-20.  The archive eventually became a
repository for several thousand applications from simple one-liner
shell scripts to very complex software such as emacs.

Unfortunately, a few bad apples were taking this public domain code
and adding trivial proprietary extensions and then selling it for
hundreds of dollars per seat.  When Ed Gosling, of Java fame, took a
copy of Richard Stallman's emacs, added a few proprietary drivers, and
then started selling the package for $300 per seat, without making ANY
attempt to compensate any of the hundreds of contributors who wrote
and enhanced emacs, Richard started a conversation in a usenet
newsgroup, asking how he could publish the code in a way that people
could access the source code, but at the same time, nobody could take
that code and release a proprietary version.  The first product of
this project was the General Public License.  Later Richard Stallman
started a project to help protect the code written by hundreds of BSD
developers who never got compensated by AT&T.  The code was API
compatible with UNIX, but was not AT&T UNIX code.  The project was
called GNU which stood for GNU is Not Unix.  A new license was
released called the GNU public license.

In the 1970s and the 1980s, those who felt that proprietary software
was overpriced and that people should be able to share source code
freely, much like other scientific research, especially government
funded research, wrote several papers in support of what we now call
Open Source.

The MIT "Hacker's Ethic" referred to highly skilled programmers who
were writing software that was not specifically or directly funded by
their employees.  This group also included numerous students and
system administrators.

When Richard Stallman announced the GNU project, he also wrote a
document called the GNU manifesto, explaining why people should
support and adopt Open Source, and the dangers of becoming too
dependent on proprietary software.

Linus Torvalds submitted his 10,000 line operating system to the GNU
project, not really expecting it to be much more than a tool to help
the HURD project.  He didn't even name the operating system
initially.  Later, Linux, which stood for "Linux Is Not UniX" was
given the L prefix in recognition of Linus, who had already begun to
coordinate and test input from almost 1,000 contributors.

Linus also had a very interesting position.  He offered to make any
fixes to the kernel that were required to make any of the GNU, BSD,
and Athena applications run on Linux.  Linus took the attitude that if
it wasn't Linux compatible, then it was a bug that his kernel team had
to fix.

The GNU Library for C, aka glibc was managed by the GNU team, but was
also tuned to work well with Linux.  Linus and the glibc team worked
hard to assure full compatibility across all GCC platforms.

The result was that about 9 months after Linux was first released,
nearly all of the GNU, BSD, and Athena applications were available
under Linux.  Furthermore, companies like Sun also contributed their
code.

Linux came with so much software it became difficult to describe it.
Sun and Dec referred to it as "Complimentary" software - a bit like
getting a "complimentary" porterhouse steak with your salad.  IBM and
HP referred to this software as "Unsupported" - meaning that it wasn't
directly supported by the corporation making the hardware, but it was
supported by the GNU, Athena, and BSD volunteers.

Many more applications were added to the collection, and more and more
organizations began to look at Open Source as a viable alternative for
at least some of their code.  Today even companies like IBM, Sun, and
Oracle have found the value of Open Source.

Eventually, the term Open Source was coined.   The term referred to a
wide variety of software published under roughly 30 different
copyright licenses.  The term is defined by OpenSource.org, and even
today, their guidlines define the term Open Source.  Although they
tried unsuccessfully to trademark the term, they did trademark a
similar term, and have managed themselves as the arbitrator.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, Microsoft had gotton on the press for MS-
DOS, and after several horrible releases of Windows, they finally
released Windows 3.1, but compared to what was available on UNIX
workstations at the time, Windows seemed primative.  Bill Gates almost
freaked when he went to the CES show to promote Windows 3.1 and saw
the crowds gathering around the Sun booth.  It was way too familiar a
site.  The first time Bill had that experience was at a show where he
was there to promote Microsoft BASIC on the Altair 8800 while Steve
Jobs was on the other side of the room in his suit and tie showing off
his Apple ][ computer.

The one thing Microsoft had going for it, was that Windows ran on a PC
that typically ran about $3,000 and UNIX ran on a workstation that
typically cost as much as $10,000.  Linux changed the game
completely.  Linux ran on an 80386 machine, which meant that it could
run on the same hardware as even Windows 3.1.  It was Microsoft's
worst nightmare.

Bill Gates and Microsoft went to almost any lengths, legal or not,
including fraud, extortion, blackmail, sabotage, and obstruction of
justice, eventually paying as much as $2 billion in legal fees and $2
billion in settlemens - to keep Linux off the retailer shelves.  Bill
Gates knew, from the CES experience, as well as several other "Side-by-
side" run-offs - that Linux or UNIX could easily outperform Windows,
had more functionality, better security, and better stability.  During
federal and EU court cases, Microsoft's estimates of the Linux market
and it's growth rate clearly indicated that Microsoft felt that Linux
was Microsoft's biggest threat.

One of the biggest problems is that Linux can't be killed the usual
ways.  Microsoft has tried to block them out of the market by keeping
it out of computer stores, but Linux ended up getting sold on the
magazine racks of numerous book stores.  Today Borders and Barnes and
Noble have about 2,000 stores combined, and each store sells around 60
copies of Linux per month.  In addition, numerous books include Linux
DVDs.

Another way to get Linux is to download it.  If you didn't have high
speed internet at home, you could get free WiFi at restaurants or
hotels and other public venues, and download a CD-ROM or DVD image in
about an hour.  The installation media included the software required
to shrink the Windows partition, install Linux, and boot either system
at boot time, was all included in the downloaded media.

Microsoft couldn't do a take-over either.  They tried partnerships
with Novell, and a proxy take-over of Caldera, where they had Daryl
McBride destroy the company, but each version of Linux that got
"knocked out" was replaced with another even better distribution.

For those who weren't quite willing to create a dedicated Linux
partition, newcomers could boot a "Live-CD" or "Live-DVD" and later
"Live-USB-Stick" to have a fully functional version of Linux, without
even touching the Windows drive.

Some references worth looking at:
http://opensource.arc.nasa.gov/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackers:_Heroes_of_the_Computer_Revolution

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution

http://www.osdata.com/oses/sunos.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates


http://www.laynetworks.com/history5.htm

http://www.laynetworks.com/history4.htm

http://www.laynetworks.com/history3.htm

http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company_part2.htm

http://library.thinkquest.org/22522/timeline5_en.html

http://library.thinkquest.org/22522/timeline4_en.html

http://www.voteview.com/gates.htm

spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>So what are these lies you accuse the linux side of making then?
>Or are you just taking the word of hadron, doofy and their ilk that such
>lies are commonplace without checking?
>
>Cos a lot of what they CLAIM to be lies are just them calling "LIAR" for the
>sake of it.


I wouldn't take their word for it without evidence, no.  Nor is it
remotely necessary.  Almost daily, someone posts that it's basically,
or outright, impossible to use Windows securely, or that Microsoft's
business practices are the only reason it's dominant in the OS market/
usage.  That's simply not advocacy - it's an attempt at misleading to
scare/guilt people into switching.

I actually encourage people to try Linux out if they're interested.  I
did so in alt.windows7.general this week, even.  What's the harm?
It's free, and they might learn something new, or even find that they
prefer it.  It actually bothers me that Windows is as dominant as it
is, in fact.  I think competition is good for everyone.  But we won't
get there by exaggerating the drawbacks of Windows and the advantages
of alternatives - we'll get there by improving the options, and
rationally exposing people to them.

-- 
Joel Crump

In article <hp6fnp$g2$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
 Alex Stubbins <darklinkxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".

Because it's not mainstream. They kind of people who get religious about 
dumb things like operating systems are the kind of people that don't 
trust things that are mainstream. They will avoid Windows and to a 
lesser extent Mac, and so end up on Linux.

The net result is that desktop Linux has a higher percentage of kooks, 
conspiracy theorists, paranoids, and so on among its users than does 
Windows or OS X.

Note this has nothing to do with the strengths or weaknesses of Linux. 
It is solely because it is not mainstream. If Linux desktop use grew to 
where Windows, Mac, and Linux were all about equal, a lot of the loons 
would give op on Linux and switch to something else--or at least would 
shun the major Linux distributions.

-- 
--Tim Smith

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 03:47:31 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:

> Because it's not mainstream. They kind of people who get religious about
> dumb things like operating systems are the kind of people that don't
> trust things that are mainstream. They will avoid Windows and to a
> lesser extent Mac, and so end up on Linux.

This coming from folks who drool 24/7 in an advocacy newsgroup for a 
product they don't like. Talk cultist cranks "calling the kettle black."


-- 
RonB
Registered Linux User #498581
CentOS 5.4 or Vector Linux Deluxe 6.0

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> writes:

> On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 03:47:31 -0700, Tim Smith wrote:
>
>> Because it's not mainstream. They kind of people who get religious about
>> dumb things like operating systems are the kind of people that don't
>> trust things that are mainstream. They will avoid Windows and to a
>> lesser extent Mac, and so end up on Linux.
>
> This coming from folks who drool 24/7 in an advocacy newsgroup for a 
> product they don't like. Talk cultist cranks "calling the kettle black."

I like Linux. AFAIK Tim does too. Why do you tell so many lies WronG?

You still don't get it. Not liking mealy mouthed wannabes like you
Marti, HPT etc doesn't mean we dont like Linux. We just don't think you
should be a drooling, repetitive, dishonest moron about Windows to
advocate Linux on its own strengths.

RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:

>This coming from folks who drool 24/7 in an advocacy newsgroup for a 
>product they don't like. Talk cultist cranks "calling the kettle black."


So, if we leave, you promise to shut the fuck up with your egregious
lies about Windows?

Didn't think so.  We remain.

-- 
Joel Crump

On Apr 3, 10:48=A0am, Joel <joelcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Peter K=F6hlmann <peter-koehlm...@t-online.de> wrote:
> >> It's not "WinTrolling", it's making sure you clowns can't lie about
> >> Windows without being challenged on it, fuckface. =A0Stop whining.
>
> >You mean "no viruses caught ever" and similar lies from your filthy ilk?
>

Peter Kohlmann, whose name means "ASS MAN" in Greek, is a filthy
troll.


> Hey, look, if Windows defenders lie, they should be challenged on it
> also. =A0I haven't ever been infected with malware, personally, but I
> certainly am not claiming that it's not a serious problem for Windows
> as a platform. =A0If people are going so far as to claim that, I too
> will call them on it. =A0However, I haven't seen people claiming that.
> In fact, DFS freely admitted getting two infections, just recently.
>
> I take a balanced approach. =A0I like Windows, but I have criticized
> certain aspects of it, such as AutoPlay just recently, and I have
> *zealously* attacked Microsoft Office, and proclaimed my preference
> for OpenOffice, multiple times (just the other day, in
> alt.windows7.general, a Linux user added microsoft.public.outlook to a
> thread, and I dissed MSO right there in that part of the thread - I
> make no bones about my hatred of it).

I call it as I see it.  I surf the net heavily and in the past nearly
20 years I have never caught a virus using Windows.  I take reasonable
precautions, like using a firewall (hardware and software) and AV
protection.

And OpenOffice sucks--it's not 100% compatible with Office.  It may
well be "better" but if it's not 100% compatible with the de facto
standard for communicating with white collar professionals, it's not
for me.

RL

On Apr 3, 12:03=A0pm, Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:

>=A0Bill Gates almost
> freaked when he went to the CES show to promote Windows 3.1 and saw
> the crowds gathering around the Sun booth. =A0It was way too familiar a
> site. =A0

You mean "sight", not "site"?  The rest of your thesis is flawed too.

>
> The one thing Microsoft had going for it, was that Windows ran on a PC
> that typically ran about $3,000 and UNIX ran on a workstation that
> typically cost as much as $10,000. =A0Linux changed the game
> completely. =A0Linux ran on an 80386 machine, which meant that it could
> run on the same hardware as even Windows 3.1. =A0It was Microsoft's
> worst nightmare.

Really?  Worst nightmare?  MSFT then has pleasant dreams, if Linux is
their worst nightmare, with less than 1% market share.

Emperor. Clothes. No.  Elephant. Room. Ignore.

That's Linux with their 1% market share.  And none of you freetard
Linux cultards address it.

RL

On Apr 3, 12:47=A0pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> In article <hp6fnp$g...@speranza.aioe.org>,
> =A0Alex Stubbins <darklinkx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".
>
> Because it's not mainstream. They kind of people who get religious about
> dumb things like operating systems are the kind of people that don't
> trust things that are mainstream. They will avoid Windows and to a
> lesser extent Mac, and so end up on Linux.
>
> The net result is that desktop Linux has a higher percentage of kooks,
> conspiracy theorists, paranoids, and so on among its users than does
> Windows or OS X.
>
> Note this has nothing to do with the strengths or weaknesses of Linux.
> It is solely because it is not mainstream. If Linux desktop use grew to
> where Windows, Mac, and Linux were all about equal, a lot of the loons
> would give op on Linux and switch to something else--or at least would
> shun the major Linux distributions.

Right you are my friend.

And Linux, if it ever gained market share, would have the same
problems with viruses as Windows--with these viruses being caused by
dumb users installing the viruses unwittingly.

No matter how many 'built in' precautions Linux has, a user installing
malware by mistake or by negligence will defeat them.

RL

On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:21:14 -0700, Alex Stubbins wrote:

> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".

Well, geeks used to have a cult called "Friends of the Friendless"
but then along came Linux and they all moved over to Linux.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaW5AndksKc

Notice Rex on the drum and Marti blowing the trumpet for all it's
worth.

That's HPT over there blowing into the wrong end of the trombone.

Alex Stubbins pulled this Usenet boner:

> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".

Yes.  Windows guys made it one.

-- 
Abandon the search for Truth; settle for a good fantasy.

Moshe <goldee_loxnbagels@gmail.com> writes:

> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:21:14 -0700, Alex Stubbins wrote:
>
>> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".
>
> Well, geeks used to have a cult called "Friends of the Friendless"
> but then along came Linux and they all moved over to Linux.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaW5AndksKc
>
> Notice Rex on the drum and Marti blowing the trumpet for all it's
> worth.
>
> That's HPT over there blowing into the wrong end of the trombone.

I thought for a minute you were going to say he was blowing Marti.

On 4/3/2010 12:21 AM, Alex Stubbins wrote:
> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".
>

Well, the same way any popular product or service attracts fans.

On Saturday 03 April 2010 12:23 Joel wrote:

> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>This coming from folks who drool 24/7 in an advocacy newsgroup for a
>>product they don't like. Talk cultist cranks "calling the kettle black."
> 
> 
> So, if we leave, you promise to shut the fuck up with your egregious
> lies about Windows?
> 
> Didn't think so.  We remain.

Very commendable.  I can see that you have the Microsoft Religion :-)

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 14:54:58 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Moshe <goldee_loxnbagels@gmail.com> writes:
> 
>> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:21:14 -0700, Alex Stubbins wrote:
>>
>>> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".
>>
>> Well, geeks used to have a cult called "Friends of the Friendless"
>> but then along came Linux and they all moved over to Linux.
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yaW5AndksKc
>>
>> Notice Rex on the drum and Marti blowing the trumpet for all it's
>> worth.
>>
>> That's HPT over there blowing into the wrong end of the trombone.
> 
> I thought for a minute you were going to say he was blowing Marti.

Was that Marti ??

My mistake!!

On Saturday 03 April 2010 09:04 Joel wrote:

> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>>What you mean, of course, is how did WinTrolling on COLA become a cult?
>>The answer is, I don't know. How do any cults start -- weak minds
>>willingly parroting half-wits, seems to be the norm.
> 
> 
> It's not "WinTrolling", it's making sure you clowns can't lie about
> Windows without being challenged on it, fuckface.  Stop whining.
> 

Sounds like the Microsoft Religion to me.

On 4/3/2010 6:03 AM, Rex Ballard wrote:

> Some references worth looking at:

> http://opensource.arc.nasa.gov/
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hacker_ethic
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackers:_Heroes_of_the_Computer_Revolution
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution
>
> http://www.osdata.com/oses/sunos.htm
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Gates
>
> http://www.laynetworks.com/history5.htm
>
> http://www.laynetworks.com/history4.htm
>
> http://www.laynetworks.com/history3.htm
>
> http://www.thocp.net/companies/microsoft/microsoft_company_part2.htm
>
> http://library.thinkquest.org/22522/timeline5_en.html
>
> http://library.thinkquest.org/22522/timeline4_en.html
>
> http://www.voteview.com/gates.htm

Thank you for the excellent post and the links.

On 4/3/2010 6:35 AM, Joel wrote:

> Almost daily, someone posts that it's basically,
> or outright, impossible to use Windows securely

Do you think that's untrue?  If so, please explain how one can use 
Windows securely.


, or that Microsoft's
> business practices are the only reason it's dominant in the OS market/
> usage.

Hmm... what other reasons might there be?  That until recently it was 
easier for non-techies to get started with Windows than with Linux.

It's not that Windows is easier generally to use.  In my experience, 
people who are average type folks still find Windows difficult to use. 
Basic things like keeping Windows and their anti-virus program up to 
date is still too complicated for more users, apparently, and Windows 
doesn't make that easy enough for them yet, or they'd be doing it.

They have the same problems with Windows that they would have with Linux.

In my experience, most people generally are not mature and responsible 
enough to use any kind of computer properly.  But that is a separate issue.

"Alex Stubbins" <darklinkxxxx@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:hp6fnp$g2$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".
>
In a word, and one that even the kraut head might understand:  schadenfreude

There are very few such rabid Linux fans to be sure, but they are loud and 
persistent.  The bulk of Linux use today is accounted for by the former Unix 
users who are simply trying to save a buck and see no significant difference 
between a Unix server operation and a Linux server operation since the 
hardware and software and administrative procedures are essentially 
identical.  In a lot of these installations, a low cost Lintel machine can 
directly replace a high cost Unix machine with no discernible changes to the 
user's operations.

 

ToolPackinMama <philnblanc@comcast.net> wrote:

>> Almost daily, someone posts that it's basically,
>> or outright, impossible to use Windows securely
>
>Do you think that's untrue?  If so, please explain how one can use 
>Windows securely.


Use of a router, or at least a software firewall.  Not pirating
software.  Keeping vulnerable software updated.  That's basically
*all* I do - I have not run anti-malware software since XP SP2 came
out, for example.


>, or that Microsoft's
>> business practices are the only reason it's dominant in the OS market/
>> usage.
>
>Hmm... what other reasons might there be?  That until recently it was 
>easier for non-techies to get started with Windows than with Linux.
>
>It's not that Windows is easier generally to use.  In my experience, 
>people who are average type folks still find Windows difficult to use. 
>Basic things like keeping Windows and their anti-virus program up to 
>date is still too complicated for more users, apparently, and Windows 
>doesn't make that easy enough for them yet, or they'd be doing it.
>
>They have the same problems with Windows that they would have with Linux.


I certainly am not claiming that relatively basic use of a computer is
genuinely harder with Linux.  If one is satisfied by the GUI-level
control of a typical Linux distro, and it runs well on their machine
(perhaps by getting help with the initial setup, in the case of
hardware that isn't supported natively by the distro), there is
nothing particularly difficult about running Linux.


>In my experience, most people generally are not mature and responsible 
>enough to use any kind of computer properly.  But that is a separate issue.


You unfortunately have a very good point, there (not sure I'd say
"most", necessarily, but it's all too common, at least).

-- 
Joel Crump

bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>> It's not "WinTrolling", it's making sure you clowns can't lie about
>> Windows without being challenged on it, fuckface.  Stop whining.
>
>Sounds like the Microsoft Religion to me.


If I were anti-Linux (or anti-non-Windows in general), maybe - but I'm
not.  I have enjoyed experimenting with both Linux and OS X.

-- 
Joel Crump

bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>> So, if we leave, you promise to shut the fuck up with your egregious
>> lies about Windows?
>> 
>> Didn't think so.  We remain.
>
>Very commendable.  I can see that you have the Microsoft Religion :-)


It should also be noted (along with my other reply to your other
similar post in this thread) that I don't feel that *all* Linux users
are to be painted with the same brush, as what the OP called
"religion" with regard to Linux.

-- 
Joel Crump

Joel wrote:

> bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> 
>>> It's not "WinTrolling", it's making sure you clowns can't lie about
>>> Windows without being challenged on it, fuckface.  Stop whining.
>>
>>Sounds like the Microsoft Religion to me.
> 
> 
> If I were anti-Linux (or anti-non-Windows in general), maybe - but I'm
> not.  I have enjoyed experimenting with both Linux and OS X.
> 

And why should anyone believe a single word from a rabid liar like you?
-- 
Law of Probable Dispersal:
Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.

Joel wrote:

> ToolPackinMama <philnblanc@comcast.net> wrote:
> 
>>> Almost daily, someone posts that it's basically,
>>> or outright, impossible to use Windows securely
>>
>>Do you think that's untrue?  If so, please explain how one can use
>>Windows securely.
> 
> 
> Use of a router, or at least a software firewall.  Not pirating
> software.  Keeping vulnerable software updated.  That's basically
> *all* I do - I have not run anti-malware software since XP SP2 came
> out, for example.

In short: Your beloved windows is infected with dozens of malware

-- 
You're not my type.  For that matter, you're not even my species

And verily, didst RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> hastily babble thusly:
> And OpenOffice sucks--it's not 100% compatible with Office.  It may
> well be "better" but if it's not 100% compatible with the de facto
> standard for communicating with white collar professionals, it's not
> for me.

Well so what? Office isn't 100% compatible with Office.
-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co.uk   | "I'm alive!!! I can touch! I can taste!         |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   |  I can SMELL!!!  KRYTEN!!! Unpack Rachel and    |
|            in            |  get out the puncture repair kit!"              |
|     Computer Science     |     Arnold Judas Rimmer- Red Dwarf              |

Peter K�hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>Joel wrote:
>> ToolPackinMama <philnblanc@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>Do you think that's untrue?  If so, please explain how one can use
>>>Windows securely.
>> 
>> Use of a router, or at least a software firewall.  Not pirating
>> software.  Keeping vulnerable software updated.  That's basically
>> *all* I do - I have not run anti-malware software since XP SP2 came
>> out, for example.
>
>In short: Your beloved windows is infected with dozens of malware


Wrong.  You can repeat that unproven nonsense as many times as you
want, but it won't make it true - or even supported by the slightest
evidence.

-- 
Joel Crump

Peter K�hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>Joel wrote:
>> bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> 
>>>Sounds like the Microsoft Religion to me.
>> 
>> If I were anti-Linux (or anti-non-Windows in general), maybe - but I'm
>> not.  I have enjoyed experimenting with both Linux and OS X.
>
>And why should anyone believe a single word from a rabid liar like you?


Feel free to show where I've lied about anything.  I don't lie.

-- 
Joel Crump

spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:

>Well so what? Office isn't 100% compatible with Office.


Exactly.  The more I learn about it (there was just this week a
discussion in alt.windows7.general about Outlook, which frankly blew
my mind with just how broken it is *by design*), the more I find it
simply unbelievable that people not only tolerate the crapware-ness,
but *pay* through the *nose* for the privilege.

-- 
Joel Crump

spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:

> And verily, didst RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> hastily babble thusly:
>> And OpenOffice sucks--it's not 100% compatible with Office.  It may
>> well be "better" but if it's not 100% compatible with the de facto
>> standard for communicating with white collar professionals, it's not
>> for me.
>
> Well so what? Office isn't 100% compatible with Office.

Surely your degree that you keep harping on about indicates you're
clever enough to realise WHY OO needs to be compatible with the clear
market leader?

I guess not.

Rick like word games do your qualifications little justice ....

On Saturday 03 April 2010 15:46 Joel wrote:

> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
> 
>>Well so what? Office isn't 100% compatible with Office.
> 
> 
> Exactly.  The more I learn about it (there was just this week a
> discussion in alt.windows7.general about Outlook, which frankly blew
> my mind with just how broken it is *by design*), the more I find it
> simply unbelievable that people not only tolerate the crapware-ness,
> but *pay* through the *nose* for the privilege.

Tut!  A bit less Religious fervour if you please :-)

Seriously, and in common with many a zealot, RayLupez makes logical errors
in his arguments.  For example:-

1. He claims that OpenOffice is not 100% compatible with MS Office.
On the face of it, possibly true - but one can turn this around.
It also means that MS Office is perhaps not 100% compatible with OpenOffice! 
Who is to say, if things don't match, who is wrong?
In general, one is speaking of MS formats when one argues this way.  I have
never seen any similar arguments with respect to Text, HTML, PDF etc, or
even ODF produced by them - only wrt MS formats.
- So the question becomes "If one is wrong (or both, of course), how can we
check that?  Where is the specification"?

2. There was a recent thread about compatibilty with Outlook.
Same argument.

3. In the past, there have been *lots* of arguments wrt browsers, and "Only
Internet Explorer can be used on this site".  Interestingly, MS is now
trying to get its act together, and actually comply with International
standards.  It's been a long, hard road though - and I suspect that
many "I.E. Only" sites are breaking in the process :-)

Joel wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>Joel wrote:
>>> bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>Sounds like the Microsoft Religion to me.
>>> 
>>> If I were anti-Linux (or anti-non-Windows in general), maybe - but I'm
>>> not.  I have enjoyed experimenting with both Linux and OS X.
>>
>>And why should anyone believe a single word from a rabid liar like you?
> 
> 
> Feel free to show where I've lied about anything.  I don't lie.
> 

Well, you claim to have no malware, even without AV software.

Obviously a blatant lie
-- 
Windows: Because everyone needs a good laugh!

spike1@freenet.co.uk pulled this Usenet boner:

> And verily, didst RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> hastily babble thusly:
>> And OpenOffice sucks--it's not 100% compatible with Office.  It may
>> well be "better" but if it's not 100% compatible with the de facto
>> standard for communicating with white collar professionals, it's not
>> for me.
>
> Well so what? Office isn't 100% compatible with Office.

Sounds like our tech writers may be moving to MS Office 2007.

I heard them talking about needing "training".

Anyway, OpenOffice compatibility with Office 2003 is actually fairly good,
really great over the most common use-cases.

May get a chance to see how well it handles 2007 formats.  From what I've
seen so far, OOo handles 2007 formats much better than Office 2003 does.

-- 
Many changes of mind and mood; do not hesitate too long.

arunix wrote:
> On Apr 3, 9:21 am, Alex Stubbins <darklinkx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".
>>
>> --
>> No matter what you believe, no government is what you think it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Then what you say about the  "<@# MS #@>

That is my sig.

-- 
No matter what you believe, no government is what you think it is.

On 4/3/2010 4:48 AM, Joel wrote:

> I have
> *zealously* attacked Microsoft Office, and proclaimed my preference
> for OpenOffice, multiple times (just the other day, in
> alt.windows7.general, a Linux user added microsoft.public.outlook to a
> thread, and I dissed MSO right there in that part of the thread - I
> make no bones about my hatred of it).


Your hatred of MS Office is ignorant and irrational (one day you'll 
learn that), and doubtless based on money.

Peter K�hlmann wrote:
> Joel wrote:
> 
>> RonB <ronb02NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> What you mean, of course, is how did WinTrolling on COLA become a cult?
>>> The answer is, I don't know. How do any cults start -- weak minds
>>> willingly parroting half-wits, seems to be the norm.
>>
>> It's not "WinTrolling", it's making sure you clowns can't lie about
>> Windows without being challenged on it, fuckface.  Stop whining.
>>
> 
> You mean "no viruses caught ever" and similar lies from your filthy ilk?

Will you please be more specific. I have no problem with arguments ( in 
fact, I enjoy them (I get in trouble alot)), but I like arguments with 
peoples references, and if you just look like a baffling idiot, it 
brings shame to your cause.

-- 
No matter what you believe, no government is what you think it is.

On 4/3/2010 10:46 AM, Joel wrote:
> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>
>> Well so what? Office isn't 100% compatible with Office.
>
>
> Exactly.  The more I learn about it (there was just this week a
> discussion in alt.windows7.general about Outlook, which frankly blew
> my mind with just how broken it is *by design*), the more I find it
> simply unbelievable that people not only tolerate the crapware-ness,
> but *pay* through the *nose* for the privilege.


What's broken about it?  And you're one broke-ass guy if you think MS 
Office costs a lot.

I do think the configuration available under Tools | Options are 
powerful but nested levels of confusion, but does that make Outlook 
broken?  I think not.

And as usual, Outlook makes every Linux mail client I've ever tried look 
like child's play (though I haven't tried Evolution in quite a while).

Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:

>Surely your degree that you keep harping on about indicates you're
>clever enough to realise WHY OO needs to be compatible with the clear
>market leader?


It *is* compatible.  Maybe not "100%", but frankly, that's the dummies
who use MSO's problem.  Let *their* sorry little asses worry about the
*minor* variations when OOo saves an MSO-format file.  *They* are the
ones who deserve to deal with the consequences of *URINATING* their
hard-earned money in the general direction of Seattle.

-- 
Joel Crump

On 4/3/2010 12:29 PM, Joel wrote:
> Hadron<hadronquark@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
>> Surely your degree that you keep harping on about indicates you're
>> clever enough to realise WHY OO needs to be compatible with the clear
>> market leader?
>
>
> It *is* compatible.  Maybe not "100%", but frankly, that's the dummies
> who use MSO's problem.  Let *their* sorry little asses worry about the
> *minor* variations when OOo saves an MSO-format file.

"Minor variations" is a joke.  Depending on the complexity of the MS 
Office document, the OpenOffice crudware will ruin it if you're not careful.

You're deluded if you think any big company will ever trust millions of 
MS Office documents to the hands of that hobbyware.





> *They* are the
> ones who deserve to deal with the consequences of *URINATING* their
> hard-earned money in the general direction of Seattle.

Get over yourself.  For the past 15 years, practically the whole world 
runs and throws money at Microsoft for MS Office.

And verily, didst Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> hastily babble thusly:
> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
> 
>> And verily, didst RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> hastily babble thusly:
>>> And OpenOffice sucks--it's not 100% compatible with Office.  It may
>>> well be "better" but if it's not 100% compatible with the de facto
>>> standard for communicating with white collar professionals, it's not
>>> for me.
>>
>> Well so what? Office isn't 100% compatible with Office.
> 
> Surely your degree that you keep harping on about

The only person who harps on about my degree is you, hardon.
I haven't mentioned it in ages without you bringing it up first.

> indicates you're
> clever enough to realise WHY OO needs to be compatible with the clear
> market leader?
>

Shirley YOU are clever enough to realise that MS OFFICE needs to be
compatible with itself?!

And yet, how odd... EVEN MICROSOFT CAN'T MANAGE IT! 
How odd. So if microsoft can't even bother getting their office software
compatible with earlier versions of ITSELF, what chance do you think
outside independent software has?

-- 
|   spike1@freenet.co,uk   | "Are you pondering what I'm pondering Pinky?"   |
|   Andrew Halliwell BSc   |                                                 |
|            in            | "I think so brain, but this time, you control   |
|     Computer Science     |  the Encounter suit, and I'll do the voice..."  |

bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>On Saturday 03 April 2010 15:46 Joel wrote:
>> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>> 
>>>Well so what? Office isn't 100% compatible with Office.
>> 
>> Exactly.  The more I learn about it (there was just this week a
>> discussion in alt.windows7.general about Outlook, which frankly blew
>> my mind with just how broken it is *by design*), the more I find it
>> simply unbelievable that people not only tolerate the crapware-ness,
>> but *pay* through the *nose* for the privilege.
>
>Tut!  A bit less Religious fervour if you please :-)


I can't help it - I am a sworn enemy of that God damn bloatware.  I
know people call me one of the Wintrolls, but MSO ain't Windows.  I've
loved OpenOffice since about a minute after I first installed it,
several years ago.  I knew I had found the perfect replacement.


>Seriously, and in common with many a zealot, RayLupez makes logical errors
>in his arguments.  For example:-
>
>1. He claims that OpenOffice is not 100% compatible with MS Office.
>On the face of it, possibly true - but one can turn this around.
>It also means that MS Office is perhaps not 100% compatible with OpenOffice! 
>Who is to say, if things don't match, who is wrong?
>In general, one is speaking of MS formats when one argues this way.  I have
>never seen any similar arguments with respect to Text, HTML, PDF etc, or
>even ODF produced by them - only wrt MS formats.
>- So the question becomes "If one is wrong (or both, of course), how can we
>check that?  Where is the specification"?


Amen.


>2. There was a recent thread about compatibilty with Outlook.
>Same argument.


Yeah, I *really* don't get that one - email is email is email.
Outlook, Outlook Express/Windows Live Mail, Thunderbird, etc. - what's
the fuckin' issue?  Oh, but Outlook has other features integrated into
it.  Well, all that does is screw it up - and being "compatible" with
that will only screw up those other programs!


>3. In the past, there have been *lots* of arguments wrt browsers, and "Only
>Internet Explorer can be used on this site".  Interestingly, MS is now
>trying to get its act together, and actually comply with International
>standards.  It's been a long, hard road though - and I suspect that
>many "I.E. Only" sites are breaking in the process :-)


I dunno - I use IE for Facebook, where it seems a bit better, but
nearly everything else looks and performs better with Firefox.  It
would take a *lot* for MS to fix up IE to where I'd consider using it
as my main browser.

-- 
Joel Crump

On Saturday 03 April 2010 16:07 Hadron wrote:

> spike1@freenet.co.uk writes:
> 
>> And verily, didst RayLopez99 <raylopez88@gmail.com> hastily babble
>> thusly:
>>> And OpenOffice sucks--it's not 100% compatible with Office.  It may
>>> well be "better" but if it's not 100% compatible with the de facto
>>> standard for communicating with white collar professionals, it's not
>>> for me.
>>
>> Well so what? Office isn't 100% compatible with Office.
> 
> Surely your degree that you keep harping on about indicates you're
> clever enough to realise WHY OO needs to be compatible with the clear
> market leader?

Hmmm.... is that a bit like saying, 5 or 6 years ago, that Firefox et al
would need to be "compatible" with Internet Explorer and particularly MS
ActiveX, because that was the clear market leader?  It seems to me that MS
I.E. is now desperately playing catch-up!
imo what anything needs to be compatible with is clear, documented
standards.

bbgruff <bbgruff@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

>Hmmm.... is that a bit like saying, 5 or 6 years ago, that Firefox et al
>would need to be "compatible" with Internet Explorer and particularly MS
>ActiveX, because that was the clear market leader?  It seems to me that MS
>I.E. is now desperately playing catch-up!
>imo what anything needs to be compatible with is clear, documented
>standards.


Damn straight!

-- 
Joel Crump

DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:

>> Exactly.  The more I learn about it (there was just this week a
>> discussion in alt.windows7.general about Outlook, which frankly blew
>> my mind with just how broken it is *by design*), the more I find it
>> simply unbelievable that people not only tolerate the crapware-ness,
>> but *pay* through the *nose* for the privilege.
>
>What's broken about it?


After one poster added microsoft.public.outlook to the thread, an
Outlook MVP stated that the only way to fully transfer one's Outlook
data to another machine was to *move*, not merely copy or import, the
PST-containing folder.  How fucking retarded is that?  I have to
*move* the file to a thumb drive or external hard drive, and then
*move* it again to the new computer's hard drive.

What if I want to leave the old computer alone, till I get everything
straight?  Obviously, one can just ignore those finer details, and use
importing or whatever, but it shouldn't matter how you do it - it
should just work.  MSO simply doesn't just work.  It's a mess.  It's a
lost cause.  They need to actually rewrite it, like they did with
Vista.


>  And you're one broke-ass guy if you think MS 
>Office costs a lot.


Bullshit.  It *does* cost a lot.  I could afford it if I wanted it,
but why in God's name would I, when there are plenty of other programs
I could buy for that much money?  I simply don't want it - even if MSO
were *free*, I'd prefer OOo.


>I do think the configuration available under Tools | Options are 
>powerful but nested levels of confusion, but does that make Outlook 
>broken?  I think not.


Confusion I can handle - I enjoy studying and configuring software.
Broken features, well, that's for the birds.


>And as usual, Outlook makes every Linux mail client I've ever tried look 
>like child's play (though I haven't tried Evolution in quite a while).


No one even needs anything beyond the free email clients.  Email is
simple - why does Outlook make it so needlessly complex, to begin
with?  It's silly.

-- 
Joel Crump

DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:

>> It *is* compatible.  Maybe not "100%", but frankly, that's the dummies
>> who use MSO's problem.  Let *their* sorry little asses worry about the
>> *minor* variations when OOo saves an MSO-format file.
>
>"Minor variations" is a joke.  Depending on the complexity of the MS 
>Office document, the OpenOffice crudware will ruin it if you're not careful.
>
>You're deluded if you think any big company will ever trust millions of 
>MS Office documents to the hands of that hobbyware.


Here's my solution:  bite the bullet, and quit using MSO.  Would you
recommend heroin addicts just stay on smack their whole lives?  It's
too late, right?  Quitting now will just sentence them to a life of
resisting the urge.

I call b.s.  Take the time to get your documents converted properly.
Make the effort.  When you're done, you can delete MSO forever, and
not have to worry about the proprietary formats, vendor lock-in,
ad nauseum.


>> *They* are the
>> ones who deserve to deal with the consequences of *URINATING* their
>> hard-earned money in the general direction of Seattle.
>
>Get over yourself.  For the past 15 years, practically the whole world 
>runs and throws money at Microsoft for MS Office.


I don't give a flying fuck.  If practically the whole world jumped off
a bridge, that wouldn't make it right.  I stand *alone* if I must (not
that I am alone).  I view endorsing MSO the way a Christian views
sin - it just ain't worth damnation.  Using that shitware is
sentencing oneself to software purgatory.

-- 
Joel Crump

DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:

>> I have
>> *zealously* attacked Microsoft Office, and proclaimed my preference
>> for OpenOffice, multiple times (just the other day, in
>> alt.windows7.general, a Linux user added microsoft.public.outlook to a
>> thread, and I dissed MSO right there in that part of the thread - I
>> make no bones about my hatred of it).
>
>Your hatred of MS Office is ignorant and irrational (one day you'll 
>learn that), and doubtless based on money.


Not so, my friend.  *IF* I really believed it were the best software,
I'd buy a copy of Word - I don't use other office-suite programs than
word processing, so I wouldn't need the whole suite, but if I thought
they were all better and did use them, I would buy the suite.  I do
*NOT* feel that it's the best, though.  Why spend the $85 for Word,
when I think OOo Writer is better?  I'd rather donate the money to
OOo, and use the software I prefer.

-- 
Joel Crump

Peter K�hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

>>>> If I were anti-Linux (or anti-non-Windows in general), maybe - but I'm
>>>> not.  I have enjoyed experimenting with both Linux and OS X.
>>>
>>>And why should anyone believe a single word from a rabid liar like you?
>> 
>> Feel free to show where I've lied about anything.  I don't lie.
>
>Well, you claim to have no malware, even without AV software.
>
>Obviously a blatant lie


Ridiculous.  Show some evidence why that would necessarily be the
case.

-- 
Joel Crump

Joel wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>>>>> If I were anti-Linux (or anti-non-Windows in general), maybe - but
>>>>> I'm
>>>>> not.  I have enjoyed experimenting with both Linux and OS X.
>>>>
>>>>And why should anyone believe a single word from a rabid liar like
>>>>you?
>>> 
>>> Feel free to show where I've lied about anything.  I don't lie.
>>
>>Well, you claim to have no malware, even without AV software.
>>
>>Obviously a blatant lie
> 
> 
> Ridiculous.  Show some evidence why that would necessarily be the
> case.
> 

Idiot
-- 
Klingon function calls do not have 'parameters' - 
they have 'arguments' - and they ALWAYS WIN THEM.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Alex Stubbins wrote:
> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".
> 

Windows is the religion and Linux is the cure.

Ian
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iEYEARECAAYFAku3hDoACgkQ0DzqJNlXtD4aYwCcDnGxgMHPZkS3P8mxh600Mmta
B7AAn0CBMP6CnADfLGpCrI8HnmhWo6KU
=jifs
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Peter K�hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

>>>Well, you claim to have no malware, even without AV software.
>>>
>>>Obviously a blatant lie
>> 
>> Ridiculous.  Show some evidence why that would necessarily be the
>> case.
>
>Idiot


Hahaha, you dumb ass.  You put up such a great facade, but when it
comes down to anything meaningful, you give a one-word response,
running away like a little baby.

In other words, I have no malware, just like I said, and your calling
me a liar makes you an "idiot".  Congrats, Peter. :)

-- 
Joel Crump

On 2010-04-03, the following emerged from the brain of Joel:
> DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
>>And as usual, Outlook makes every Linux mail client I've ever tried look 
>>like child's play (though I haven't tried Evolution in quite a while).

Try mutt.

> No one even needs anything beyond the free email clients.  Email is
> simple - why does Outlook make it so needlessly complex, to begin
> with?  It's silly.

Absolutely. The same goes for Lotus Notes, which we use at work. Both
the client and the server are way to complex. I have studied the
server for days to get functionality I would've got out of postfix in
less than an hour.

-- 
BOFH excuse #389:

/dev/clue was linked to /dev/null

Joel wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>>>>Well, you claim to have no malware, even without AV software.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously a blatant lie
>>> 
>>> Ridiculous.  Show some evidence why that would necessarily be the
>>> case.
>>
>>Idiot
> 
> 
> Hahaha, you dumb ass.  You put up such a great facade, but when it
> comes down to anything meaningful, you give a one-word response,
> running away like a little baby.

What part of "idiot" was too difficult for you to understand?

> In other words, I have no malware, just like I said, and your calling
> me a liar makes you an "idiot".  Congrats, Peter. :)
> 

In other words, only an idiot of incredible proportions would claim such 
imbecile garbage like "Ridiculous.  Show some evidence why that would 
necessarily be the case." 

Especially given the fact that windows can't even be properly secured  
*with* AV software
-- 
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
        Let it get in YOUR way. The problem for your problem.

On Apr 3, 7:42=A0am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 12:03=A0pm, Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >=A0Bill Gates almost
> > freaked when he went to the CES show to promote Windows 3.1 and saw
> > the crowds gathering around the Sun booth. =A0It was way too familiar a
> > site. =A0

> You mean "sight", not "site"? =A0The rest of your thesis is flawed too.

Spelling correction noted.

Keep in mind that in 1990, Windows 3.0 was still not all that widely
accepted, Windows 3.1 had not been released yet, and the January 1991
CES was Microsoft's big shot at getting Windows onto lots of desktops.

Sun, meanwhile had 15% of the corporate workstation market, which made
it the leader in that specific niche market.  It wasn't a huge market,
especially compared to the hundred million or so PCs running MS-DOS at
the time, Windows 3.0 was part of that market, but it was also losing
market share to UNIX based workstations.

I worked for a company called Great West Life at the time.  We put on
a technology fair.  We put a Sun IPC about 5 feet from a Windows 3.1
PC which Microsoft had specifically sent for the event.  Microsoft
even sent a rep, a tech, and had written some special demo
applications.  The Sun SparcStation was standard issue, identical, in
terms of software, to the software that the tech support people had
been using on their SparcStations.  IT managers and executives alike
came by to see the machines side by side, and almost unanimously said
"Give my secretary Windows, but I want that ILC for my desktop".  In
all, we ended up ordering 500 Sun workstations and 1500 PCs running
Windows 3.1.

Eventually, Microsoft pushed for a re-match, and many of those
executives were "encouraged" to get Windows PCs IN ADDITION to their
Sun workstations.  It seemed that Microsoft was only willing to offer
a corporate discount on corporate licenses of Windows if every
employee was running a licensed copy of Windows.  At the time, we
didn't realize that all of our current Windows 3.0 machines would have
to be replaced, and that Windows and Office would be bundled with the
new computers.

With Sun, we had a few choices of software.  The integrated office
suite came from Applix.  Applix eventually released an office suite
for Linux as well.  One of the mosts exciting features was "hot
cells", which let you display real-time information such as quote
feeds, into spreadsheet cells.

Lotus also had a version of 1-2-3 for Sun which was MUCH better than
the Windows version.  It had multiple cascading windows, interaction
between the worksheets, and because it didn't need the MDI interface
to work effectively, it was easy to arrange only the "interesting"
columns of the sheets into a nice display.  We used it to track mutual
funds, as well as track revenues, sales, and premiums as well as
beneficiary payments - in real time.

Sun also had an application called Sun-Project, which provided
outstanding project management capabilities.  It was possible to
create very detailed work breakdowns, and then add them to higher
level plans without losing the details in the assignments.  As a
result, the load leveling and resource allocation was much more
effecient.

Perhaps one of the most popular features was Sun Net Manager.  It was
originally intended to just show basic network statistics, but we
quickly realized that we could use PERL scripts to track updates to
show revenue and expenses in real-time as well.  The executives loved
to watch the charts of the revenue, expenses, and profits for their
organizations being shown in real-time.

> > The one thing Microsoft had going for it, was that Windows ran on a PC
> > that typically ran about $3,000 and UNIX ran on a workstation that
> > typically cost as much as $10,000. =A0Linux changed the game
> > completely. =A0Linux ran on an 80386 machine, which meant that it could
> > run on the same hardware as even Windows 3.1. =A0It was Microsoft's
> > worst nightmare.

> Really? =A0Worst nightmare? =A0MSFT then has pleasant dreams, if Linux is
> their worst nightmare, with less than 1% market share.

I have found a much more interesting number for you.

http://marketing.openoffice.org/marketing_bouncer.html

Which shows Linux at 2.6% based on a sample of about 10 million
samples.  These were the people who downloaded Open Office in the last
month.  Of course, this does not count about 90% of the Linux users
who get Open Office from Yum, Yast, or Apt-get, from their Linux
provider, including automatic updates.  This would put the Linux share
at somewhere between 10% and 30%.

> Emperor. Clothes. No. =A0Elephant. Room. Ignore.

<quote>
The Channel Wire
August 05, 2009
Microsoft Admits That Linux Desktop Elephant Exists
It's no secret that Linux has had a major impact on Microsoft's server
business, but Microsoft hasn't said much about the potential effects
of desktop Linux. That changed recently when Microsoft admitted that
Linux on desktops and notebooks poses competitive threats to its
Windows client business.

In Microsoft's 10-K filing last week, the software giant said
companies with differing approaches to the PC market, including
desktop Linux purveyors Red Hat and Canonical (Ubuntu), pose "strong
competition" to Windows. Open source Web browser developers Opera and
Mozilla also are eating into Internet Explorer market share, Microsoft
said in the filing.
</quote>

http://www.crn.com/software/219100164

However, the 500 lb gorilla in the room is real.

<quote>
Microsoft's latest 10-K adds Canonical, distributor of Ubuntu Linux,
to the list of acknowledged competitors for Microsoft's Client
division, which makes Windows for PCs. Also notable=92s the addition of
Linux distributor Red Hat to the list of Client divison rivals.
Previously, Red Hat was mentioned only as a competitor for the
Microsoft Business and Server & Tools divisions. New in the browser
competition=92re Google, Apple and Opera.  Last year's filing listed
only Mozilla. Also new in that section is Google Android, reported.
</quote>

http://www.ditii.com/2009/08/04/microsoft-10-k-filing-lists-canonical-red-h=
at-google-apple/

Microsoft might be able to deal with Red Hat and Cannonical, but
Google has even deeper pockets than Microsoft's and has much lower
operating overhead, and has lots of good will.  Google Android is
doing very well.  Chromium, Google's offering for SmartBooks - based
on ARM processors instead of intel, usually with no internal hard
drive, looks to be a serious threat to Windows 7 starter edition based
NetBooks.

Linux has also gained a very solid reputation in the data center,
which may make CIOs and CTOs more receptive to additional deployments
of Linux on desktop and laptop machines.  This could also extend the
life of Windows XP, which means less long-term revenue for Microsoft.
If Microsoft pushes too hard for a migration away from Windows XP, it
could drive even more workstations to Linux.

Wider adoption of Linux could also lead to wider adoption of Open
Office and FireFox.  Many corporations now mandate that all web sites
used by the company and created for the company must support FireFox.
Accessibility has also become a bigger issue, making IE specific
features such as ActiveX controls much less desirable.

> That's Linux with their 1% market share. =A0And none of you freetard
> Linux cultards address it.

You love to cite the StatMarket survey, but you don't even know what
was measured.  For all you know, there could be severe flaws in the
survey methodology, and Linux could be grossly undercounted do to poor
parsing of the agent string portion of the http header.  Yet you quote
it like gospel.

We know, for example, that Konquorer can easily look like IE on
Windows or FireFox on Windows, if a site refuses to talk to Linux.

We know that statmarket counts IP addresses, not cookies, so Linux
workstations behind corporate firewalls wouldn't be counted.

We know that more PC users use Dial-up providers that assigned public
IP addresses, which means Windows would be overcounted.

We know that at least one market survey tool requires security
settings which are not the default settings for Linux, meaning that
the agents themselves would be blocked.

We know that any counter that needs ActiveX requires the installation
of CrossOver - not standard configuration for 99% of all Linux
distributions.

Here's a scary thought.  If the StatMarket survey only counts 2% of
all Linux users, and they are reporting a sample of 1.6%.  Wouldn't
that mean that Linux was actually now installed on nearly 40% of all
PCs as either a primary or secondary operating system?

> RL

The day you can show me the precise details of the methodology, is the
day you can quote those numbers with any credibility.  Until then,
it's nothing more than a grossly flawed survey that doesn't have any
credible documentation to back it up.

Alex Stubbins wrote:

> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".

Hm, I'm not quite familiar with the concept of "religion", so let's see what
Wikipedia has to say about it:

 "A religion is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose
  of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a
  supernatural agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual
  observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of
  human affairs."

If there's one IT organization bearing all the hallmarks of a religion, it's
Microsoft rather than Linux, what with Microsoft being omnipresent, yet
still striving to convert more souls and gather even more influence in all
aspects of people's lives, with a moral code (a.k.a. EULA) containing quite
a few commandments. People are expected to support and adhere to these
commandments by regular ritual "acceptance" of these EULA's. Failure to
observe these commandments can result in severe punishment, ranging from
naming and shaming to heavy fines; for this sole purpose, a special
Inquisition by the name of BSA has been established, seeking out offenders
by all means possible, snitching and intimidation being the most popular
ones. In addition, all sorts of means and devices are put in place to
prevent people from straying from the One Way.
Furthermore, criticism isn't appreciated, and organized campaigns of
violence and atrocity are launched on a regular basis, without any
provocation other than the desire to conquer even the last bit of available
market space. They consider themselves above the law, and have even gotten
away with a mere slap on the wrist for quite serious economic crimes.

If Linux is a religion, it's the one where people are still nice to each
other, and freely share what they bring forth, for no other reason than to
see others enjoy it too (and perhaps a bit of fame on the side :-).

Richard Rasker
-- 
http://www.linetec.nl

On Apr 3, 7:42=A0am, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 12:03=A0pm, Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >=A0Bill Gates almost
> > freaked when he went to the CES show to promote Windows 3.1 and saw
> > the crowds gathering around the Sun booth. =A0It was way too familiar a
> > site. =A0

> You mean "sight", not "site"?
Spelling error noted.


> =A0The rest of your thesis is flawed too.

And here is where we see that it's not Linux that is the only
"Religeon", but also there is the "Microsoft Religion".

Microsoft actually told me they didn't want to hire me because "You
don't have the Microsoft Religion".  Heck, I was surprised they hadn't
stoned me in the cafeteria, or nailed me to the cross, or burned me at
the stake.

[Linux is Microsoft's worst nightmare, because it can run on the same
hardware Windows uses]

> Really? =A0Worst nightmare? =A0MSFT then has pleasant dreams, if Linux is
> their worst nightmare, with less than 1% market share.

Notice the use of an undocumented and even ucited survey to claim
overwhelming superiority, even though Microsoft has stated in it's SEC
10-K filings that it considers Linux to be it's most dangerous
competititor, and has been making this statement for over 10 years
now.

> Emperor. Clothes. No. =A0Elephant. Room. Ignore.

See above.

> That's Linux with their 1% market share.

Some other surveys

This one, which only measures IP addresses, shows Linux at 4.6%

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_os.asp

This shows that FireFox has now surpassed IE in popularity with
46.5%.  When you consider that FireFox is usually ADDED to IE, that
means that FireFox is now on almost 90% of all PCs.

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

This shows Linux at 2.6%
http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php

Here's how my browser looks
Your Browser(anchor)

This lists information about your browser. It is mainly of interest to
those who wish to make browser-detection scripts.

    * Browser is likely: Firefox 3.0.16 (using Gecko 1.9.0.16 engine)
    * You can update to 3.6.3 , which is more secure
    * Display resolution: 1920x1200
    * Colour depth: 16777216 (224)
    * userAgent =3D Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:
1.9.0.16) Gecko/2009120307 Red Hat/3.0.16-1.el5_4 (CK-IBM) (CK-IBM)
Firefox/3.0.16

At least one survey listed above, only checks the first "field" after
the perenthesis in the userAgent string.  The part that says X11.

Here's what it looks like with Konqueror on Linux

Your Browser(anchor)
This lists information about your browser. It is mainly of interest to
those who wish to make browser-detection scripts.
Browser is likely: Internet Explorer 6.0 (using Trident engine)
Display resolution: 1920x1200
Colour depth: 16777216 (224)
userAgent =3D Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1)
Note : more details are available on the Resources > Your Browser
page.

Click one setting and it becomes:

Your Browser(anchor)
This lists information about your browser. It is mainly of interest to
those who wish to make browser-detection scripts.
Browser is likely: Internet Explorer 4.5 (using Trident engine)
You can update to 6.0 , which is more secure
Display resolution: 1920x1200
Colour depth: 16777216 (224)
userAgent =3D Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 4.5; Windows NT 5.0)

You can test yours at:
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/


Here is a good article on why Browser statistics are so unreliable.
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm

More caveats
http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat.htm#source5

One of the biggest issues for Linux advocates is that Microsoft has
lots of money and lots of "partners" with a vested interest in
maintaining the Windows monopoly.  These people are willing to go to
extraordinary lengths to obstruct Linux adoption, especially on the
desktop.


> =A0And none of you freetard
> Linux cultards address it.

Actually, it's regularly addressed.
The number you quote is known to be unreliable, due to flaws in the
sampling methodology.


> RL

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 16:15:09 +0200, Peter Köhlmann wrote:

> Joel wrote:
> 
>> ToolPackinMama <philnblanc@comcast.net> wrote:
>> 
>>>> Almost daily, someone posts that it's basically, or outright,
>>>> impossible to use Windows securely
>>>
>>>Do you think that's untrue?  If so, please explain how one can use
>>>Windows securely.
>> 
>> 
>> Use of a router, or at least a software firewall.

Every single ADSL modem is a firewall via it's use of NAT, so most 
Windows users already have one.

And they're not helping. No point fitting a deadlock to your front door, 
then inviting a criminal inside yourself.

>>  Not pirating
>> software.

A very good point. The only way to *not* get viruses, worms or trojans, 
is to use software that is *impossible* to pirate.

GPL'd Linux software is imossible to pirate, so use that.

>>  Keeping vulnerable software updated.  That's basically *all*
>> I do - I have not run anti-malware software since XP SP2 came out, for
>> example.
> 
> In short: Your beloved windows is infected with dozens of malware

'joel' is probably a cybercrim, whose sole interest is to help spread 
Windows viruses by advertising anti-virus measures that don't actually 
work.

-- 
This quadcore running Gnu/Linux Archlinux 2009.08 X86_64 and posting via 
Pan.
Get your Free copy NOW! www.archlinux.org/

On 4/3/2010 11:19 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> Joel wrote:

>> Feel free to show where I've lied about anything.  I don't lie.
>>
>
> Well, you claim to have no malware, even without AV software.
>
> Obviously a blatant lie

I too am skeptical, but how can his claim be proven or disproven here?

ToolPackinMama wrote:

> On 4/3/2010 11:19 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Joel wrote:
> 
>>> Feel free to show where I've lied about anything.  I don't lie.
>>>
>>
>> Well, you claim to have no malware, even without AV software.
>>
>> Obviously a blatant lie
> 
> I too am skeptical, but how can his claim be proven or disproven here?

Irrelevant. No windows connected to the internet can survive for any 
lenght of time without getting infected.
This "lenght of time" ranging anywhere from some minutes to some weeks.

But certainly not for any prolonged stretch of time
-- 
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

On 4/3/2010 1:58 PM, Joel wrote:
> DFS<nospam@dfs_.com>  wrote:
>
>>> It *is* compatible.  Maybe not "100%", but frankly, that's the dummies
>>> who use MSO's problem.  Let *their* sorry little asses worry about the
>>> *minor* variations when OOo saves an MSO-format file.
>>
>> "Minor variations" is a joke.  Depending on the complexity of the MS
>> Office document, the OpenOffice crudware will ruin it if you're not careful.
>>
>> You're deluded if you think any big company will ever trust millions of
>> MS Office documents to the hands of that hobbyware.
>
>
> Here's my solution:  bite the bullet, and quit using MSO.

It's a crappy solution.  Ridiculous and ignorant, actually.

You think any big company - even one - is going to dedicate days and 
weeks for each employee to open/convert/verify every MS Office document 
to Open Office, to save a little bit of money and to then suffer greatly 
with the slow, reduced-functionality OpenOffice hobbyware?




> Would you
> recommend heroin addicts just stay on smack their whole lives?  It's
> too late, right?  Quitting now will just sentence them to a life of
> resisting the urge.
>
> I call b.s.  Take the time to get your documents converted properly.

Who's going to pay for this time?  What's the ROI on that time?

You're fired, just for suggesting such stupidity.



> Make the effort.  When you're done, you can delete MSO forever, and
> not have to worry about the proprietary formats, vendor lock-in,
> ad nauseum.

blah blah blah... why don't you create a large, complex document (lots 
of tables, embedded charts and objects, table of contents, 
headers/footers, pagination, merge fields, etc in OpenOffice .odf, and 
do the same in MS Office and - once again - you'll find MS Office the 
superior solution.




>>> *They* are the
>>> ones who deserve to deal with the consequences of *URINATING* their
>>> hard-earned money in the general direction of Seattle.
>>
>> Get over yourself.  For the past 15 years, practically the whole world
>> runs and throws money at Microsoft for MS Office.
>
> I don't give a flying fuck.

I know you don't - you're a bullshit babbler.  Hundreds of millions use 
MS Office for the past 15 years, and a pipsqueak OO-lover like you says 
"they have to deal with the consequences".  It's laughable.



> If practically the whole world jumped off
> a bridge, that wouldn't make it right.  I stand *alone* if I must (not
> that I am alone).

You pretty much are alone, outside of cola.



> I view endorsing MSO the way a Christian views
> sin - it just ain't worth damnation.  Using that shitware is
> sentencing oneself to software purgatory.

MS Office is the best office software, and not by a small margin.

On 4/3/2010 6:41 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
> ToolPackinMama wrote:
>
>> On 4/3/2010 11:19 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>> Joel wrote:
>>
>>>> Feel free to show where I've lied about anything.  I don't lie.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Well, you claim to have no malware, even without AV software.
>>>
>>> Obviously a blatant lie
>>
>> I too am skeptical, but how can his claim be proven or disproven here?
>
> Irrelevant. No windows connected to the internet can survive for any
> lenght of time without getting infected.
> This "lenght of time" ranging anywhere from some minutes to some weeks.
>
> But certainly not for any prolonged stretch of time



You can tell yourself this until the day you die, but it won't ever be true.

On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 18:38:56 -0400, ToolPackinMama wrote:

> On 4/3/2010 11:19 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> Joel wrote:
> 
>>> Feel free to show where I've lied about anything.  I don't lie.
>>>
>>>
>> Well, you claim to have no malware, even without AV software.
>>
>> Obviously a blatant lie
> 
> I too am skeptical, but how can his claim be proven or disproven here?


Quite easily.

All you need is a browser and Google. Here is a link I found in 30 
seconds:-

Infected In Twenty Minutes
Scott Granneman, 2004-08-19

What normally happens within twenty minutes? That's how long your average 
unprotected PC running Windows XP, fresh out of the box, will last once 
it's connected to the Internet. 

Scott Granneman teaches at Washington University in St. Louis, consults 
for WebSanity, and writes for SecurityFocus and Linux Magazine. His 
latest book, Linux Phrasebook, is in stores now. 
http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/262


-- 
This machine running Gnu/Linux Mint 8 and posting via Pan.
Get your Free copy NOW!  http://linuxmint.com/

ToolPackinMama <philnblanc@comcast.net> wrote:
>On 4/3/2010 11:19 AM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>
>> Well, you claim to have no malware, even without AV software.
>>
>> Obviously a blatant lie
>
>I too am skeptical, but how can his claim be proven or disproven here?


Precisely - is it *conceivable* that there's something I'm not aware
of infecting my computer(s)?  Well, *yes*, but there's no *evidence*
of it.  I check my bank account on the Web everyday, for example.  Why
haven't the h4x0rz stolen the info and drained it?  Why haven't I seen
any evidence of denial-of-service attacks coming from our home
network, nor heard from Verizon about such?  Why don't I see my
computers generating activity when they're supposed to be idle?

If I'm 0wn3d, whomever 0wnz me sure is patient.

-- 
Joel Crump

DFS wrote:

> On 4/3/2010 6:41 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>> ToolPackinMama wrote:
>>
>>> On 4/3/2010 11:19 AM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>> Joel wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Feel free to show where I've lied about anything.  I don't lie.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, you claim to have no malware, even without AV software.
>>>>
>>>> Obviously a blatant lie
>>>
>>> I too am skeptical, but how can his claim be proven or disproven here?
>>
>> Irrelevant. No windows connected to the internet can survive for any
>> lenght of time without getting infected.
>> This "lenght of time" ranging anywhere from some minutes to some weeks.
>>
>> But certainly not for any prolonged stretch of time
> 
> 
> 
> You can tell yourself this until the day you die, but it won't ever be
> true.

You can lie about this until kingdom come, but you know that it is true.
-- 
I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

Terry Porter <linux-2@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 18:38:56 -0400, ToolPackinMama wrote:
>> On 4/3/2010 11:19 AM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>> 
>>> Well, you claim to have no malware, even without AV software.
>>>
>>> Obviously a blatant lie
>> 
>> I too am skeptical, but how can his claim be proven or disproven here?
>
>Quite easily.
>
>All you need is a browser and Google. Here is a link I found in 30 
>seconds:-
>
>Infected In Twenty Minutes
>Scott Granneman, 2004-08-19
>
>What normally happens within twenty minutes? That's how long your average 
>unprotected PC running Windows XP, fresh out of the box, will last once 
>it's connected to the Internet. 


You complete inbred idiot, that has *nothing* to do with this
discussion.  I was well aware of XP-pre-SP2's vulnerabilities when I
ran XP, and simply didn't connect it to anything before applying the
newest Service Pack and verifying that the firewall was on, *then*
connecting and immediately downloading all post-Service-Pack updates.

I also, just for the heck of it, leave the firewall on in Win7 until
all updates are installed, immediately after the OS install.  You are
really a two-bit dumb ass.


>Scott Granneman teaches at Washington University in St. Louis, consults 
>for WebSanity, and writes for SecurityFocus and Linux Magazine. His 
>latest book, Linux Phrasebook, is in stores now. 
>http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/262


Oh, yes, not in any way likely to write a misleading, anti-Windows
*FUD* article, no sir.

Btw, did you notice that the article just happens to have been written
about a week before XP SP2's general availability (almost six years
ago, for Christ's sake), which immediately made it outdated?  Grow
some balls, Linux nutjob.

-- 
Joel Crump

Peter K�hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>DFS wrote:
>> On 4/3/2010 6:41 PM, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>>>
>>> No windows connected to the internet can survive for any
>>> lenght of time without getting infected.
>>> This "lenght of time" ranging anywhere from some minutes to some weeks.
>>>
>>> But certainly not for any prolonged stretch of time
>> 
>> You can tell yourself this until the day you die, but it won't ever be
>> true.
>
>You can lie about this until kingdom come, but you know that it is true.


Yeah, yeah, yeah - you have no evidence, just shut up.

-- 
Joel Crump

Joel wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>DFS wrote:
>>> On 4/3/2010 6:41 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No windows connected to the internet can survive for any
>>>> lenght of time without getting infected.
>>>> This "lenght of time" ranging anywhere from some minutes to some
>>>> weeks.
>>>>
>>>> But certainly not for any prolonged stretch of time
>>> 
>>> You can tell yourself this until the day you die, but it won't ever be
>>> true.
>>
>>You can lie about this until kingdom come, but you know that it is true.
> 
> 
> Yeah, yeah, yeah - you have no evidence, just shut up.
> 
Keep on outright lying, "Joel".

Anyone with half a clue will laugh his ass off about your lies.
Windows can't even be secured *with* AV software. And you in your infinite 
stupidity claim that you do *without* and get no malware.

Hint: MS HQ might be interested in your "how to". Because they don't know 
how to achieve that trick you claim you do

You are truly an imbecile of enormous proportions if you believe such 
bullshit lies would fly
-- 
Support your local Search and Rescue unit -- get lost.

"Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> schreef in bericht 
news:hp84vo$t9q$00$2@news.t-online.com...
> Joel wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>
>>>>>Well, you claim to have no malware, even without AV software.
>>>>>
>>>>>Obviously a blatant lie
>>>>
>>>> Ridiculous.  Show some evidence why that would necessarily be the
>>>> case.
>>>
>>>Idiot
>>
>>
>> Hahaha, you dumb ass.  You put up such a great facade, but when it
>> comes down to anything meaningful, you give a one-word response,
>> running away like a little baby.
>
> What part of "idiot" was too difficult for you to understand?
>
>> In other words, I have no malware, just like I said, and your calling
>> me a liar makes you an "idiot".  Congrats, Peter. :)
>>
>
> In other words, only an idiot of incredible proportions would claim such
> imbecile garbage like "Ridiculous.  Show some evidence why that would
> necessarily be the case."
>
> Especially given the fact that windows can't even be properly secured
> *with* AV software

And your proof is?
I agree with Joel, I never had any malware!
Except on an old Win2K machine, where I deliberately installed 
Kgootkit.sys-Rootkit.Agent/Gen-Heathen
Quite funny actually!
b.t.w. Are you running an infected Windows version?
Hint: Fresh install and get Acronis True Image, to be guaranteed against any 
contingency!
Peter, your such a daft twit, you really are < lol >! 

On Apr 3, 9:42=A0pm, Rex Ballard <rex.ball...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The day you can show me the precise details of the methodology, is the
> day you can quote those numbers with any credibility. =A0Until then,
> it's nothing more than a grossly flawed survey that doesn't have any
> credible documentation to back it up.

Wrong.  As Wrong as wRONgB.

Microsoft's claim that Linux is a threat was made as early as their
late 1990s antitrust trial.  It is clearly meant to be a defense to
the charge that they (Microsoft) have a monopoly on the desktop (which
they do).

Even if Linux has 3% of the desktop market, it's trivial.  Apple is a
bigger threat to MSFT than the Linux movement.

RL

On Apr 4, 12:41=A0am, Peter K=F6hlmann <peter-koehlm...@t-online.de>
wrote:

>
> Irrelevant. No windows connected to the internet can survive for any
> lenght of time without getting infected.
> This "lenght of time" ranging anywhere from some minutes to some weeks.
>
> But certainly not for any prolonged stretch of time
> --
> I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

ASSMAN--how can you explain that I have been heavily surfing the net
for close to 20 years using Windows and have never had a serious virus
infection?

FUD noted.  In fact, why don't you do an experiment:  point and click
your browser, like I have, to a site that is full of viruses and see
if you get infected.  Here is one link:  click on it ASS MAN, download
the file, install it, and see if your PC reacts negatively.  Mine was
secure:  http://www.eicar.org/anti_virus_test_file.htm

RL

On Apr 4, 9:04=A0am, Joel <joelcr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ToolPackinMama <philnbl...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >On 4/3/2010 11:19 AM, Peter K=F6hlmann wrote:
>
> >> Well, you claim to have no malware, even without AV software.
>
> >> Obviously a blatant lie
>
> >I too am skeptical, but how can his claim be proven or disproven here?
>
> Precisely - is it *conceivable* that there's something I'm not aware
> of infecting my computer(s)? =A0Well, *yes*, but there's no *evidence*
> of it. =A0I check my bank account on the Web everyday, for example. =A0Wh=
y
> haven't the h4x0rz stolen the info and drained it? =A0Why haven't I seen
> any evidence of denial-of-service attacks coming from our home
> network, nor heard from Verizon about such? =A0Why don't I see my
> computers generating activity when they're supposed to be idle?
>
> If I'm 0wn3d, whomever 0wnz me sure is patient.
>

Exactly.  I've made the same point.  My $5 copy of Vista, bought
legally in Bangkok, has never compromised me in years of use.  If some
Thai is patiently waiting for me to make even more money--I'm already
worth over a million dollars--before they drain my bank accounts, then
I admire them for their Buddhist patience.

RL

Clogwog wrote:

> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> schreef in bericht
> news:hp84vo$t9q$00$2@news.t-online.com...
>> Joel wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>Well, you claim to have no malware, even without AV software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Obviously a blatant lie
>>>>>
>>>>> Ridiculous.  Show some evidence why that would necessarily be the
>>>>> case.
>>>>
>>>>Idiot
>>>
>>>
>>> Hahaha, you dumb ass.  You put up such a great facade, but when it
>>> comes down to anything meaningful, you give a one-word response,
>>> running away like a little baby.
>>
>> What part of "idiot" was too difficult for you to understand?
>>
>>> In other words, I have no malware, just like I said, and your calling
>>> me a liar makes you an "idiot".  Congrats, Peter. :)
>>>
>>
>> In other words, only an idiot of incredible proportions would claim
>> such
>> imbecile garbage like "Ridiculous.  Show some evidence why that would
>> necessarily be the case."
>>
>> Especially given the fact that windows can't even be properly secured
>> *with* AV software
> 
> And your proof is?
> I agree with Joel, I never had any malware!

How convincing

This coming from a dizum coward like you is like admitting that you and 
"Joel" are full of shit.
You would even lie when claiming that the sky is blue

You are just sewer scum, worse than Hadron Snot Quark or flatfish.
-- 
You're genuinely bogus.

RonB wrote:

> On Fri, 02 Apr 2010 21:21:14 -0700, Alex Stubbins wrote:
> 
>> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".
> 
> What you mean, of course, is how did WinTrolling on COLA become a cult?


Its the sheer amount of money being pumped into asstroturfing
as a way of marketing by appil and micoshaft corporations
which churns out rant after rant attacking Linux which
effectively causes a cult like environment to be created.
Micoshaft/appil now have and own a very effective
human PR botnet which is the guts of the cult creating machine.

Asstroturfing is illegal in the UK and EU.

Only Amrika now markets itself using asstroturfers because
in most countries such practices have become illegal.
So most human PR botnets are based in and operates out of Amrika.

Amrika corporations do it through corporate donations to charities who
do not have to report how they have used their money.
For the so called charities, they thrive by thieving
money from its intended recipients and using it for
marketing. Charity and morality has been flushed down the pan
with one stroke by corporate amrika greed.

Me thinks that corporations and these so called charities
are still required to honor FOI requests to show
how the money has been spend and what kind of information
flow structures are present between the corporations,
their marketing departments and the asstroturfing human
PR botnet operators.


> The answer is, I don't know. How do any cults start -- weak minds
> willingly parroting half-wits, seems to be the norm.
 


Micoshat Gestapo 
----------------

The claims micoshaft operate the marketing department like the
Gestapo and the Stazi targeting anything that stands
in its way are true.

The court document below goes into great detail of each individual and
micoshaft spies and snoopers producing reports on private
individuals, other companies and their staff.
Who gave Micoshaft powers to keep records on private
individuals and keep notes on their personalities?
As far as I know, all Micoshaft executives now face
immediate arrest warrants being issued on them for illegal
and subversive activities right across the globe and there
is nothing they can do to stop it because they are engaged
in violations of privacy. Do these Gestapo lists they keep include
spouses and children of reporters? Where is all the documentation
authorizing micoshaft spies to gather this information?
What are the names of the Micoshaft spies that did all the work
and what approved methods do they use to get this information?

You have to be a control freak to try to control other people's
minds and perceptions.

Making this kind of Gestapo list immediately leads to abuse and
discrimination. If micoshaft has such lists in the UK, they MUST
register with the database protection registrar and inform
them what personal details are being held against which person,
and if any opportunity is available to the individuals to see it and rectify 
any false allegations; and also describe to the database registrar in DETAIL 
what the database is used for against UK citizens and where
exactly those database and copies of its information are being kept.
If the databases are illegal, then those databases must be destroyed.

Ultimately snooping on public will fail and back fire when the people whose
records are being kept and being targeted find out because that information
leaks.

How do all these people in the list below get their life back?
Do they sue Micoshaft Corporation and the marketing plops
that run these snooping departments?

http://www.iowagotthefacts.org


PLAINTIFF'S
EXHIBIT
4081
Comes vs. Microsoft

From: Doug Miller
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2000 12:03 PM
To: Stephanie Wettstein (Waggener Edstrom); Katrina Busch (Waggener 
Edstrom);
Chuck Humbie (Waggener Edstrom); Steve Aeschbacher (LCA)
Cc: David Martin (WINMKTG); Adam Sohn; Vivek Varma; Brian Schuster; Dan 
Nesult;
Dan Crouse (LCA); Tom Burt (LCA); Chris Meyers (LCA); Lisa Tanzi (LCA); Kim
Akers (WINDOWS); Tom Phillips; Carl Stork; Mike Porter; Bill Veghte; Brian
Valentine; Jim Ewel; Vivek Varma
Subject: FW: OSDL PR Plan - attorney client privileged

attorney client privileged

Stephanie/Kate/Chuck, please find attached the PR response plan for the
anticipated OSDL announcement. As discussed in our PR meeting this morning.
David & I have spoken with Maureen O'Gara (based on go ahead from BrianV) 
and
planted the story. She has agreed to not attribute the story to us. WaggEd
actions include reviewing the positioning, review the proposed buddy mail,
review Q&As, etc.

Privileged Material

Redacted

We expect this to leak later today. At that point we will proactively 
respond
or contact press with our positioning points.

OSDL PR Response Plan

Situation:
Microsoft expects

1. The public announcement (8:30 am Wed Aug. 30 2000) of the following
structure (referred to as OSDL) that is a consortium between Intel, Redhat,
IBM and HP

* Independent, limited # of employees, non-profit entity.
* Participiting companies contribute equipment and money
* Two levels: (i) founders/steering board, big $ contributors, (ii) general
members not steer but contribute technology, benefit from "the IP 
protection"

2. OSDL's operations guidelines will be to delop a set of infrastructure for
open source development projects, claim that target is very high end space
competing against UE10000.

3. OSDL to provide:

* IP buffer for the Open Source community -- "solving the IP problem of the
GPL" -- "to get around GPL issues".
* Linux primary beneficiary, other OSS projects could benefit.

4. OSDL's possible goals include:

* IP buffer. Ship GPL code unchanged without donating via GPL patents in 
that
code.
* Chip demand increase
* Converged Linux/GPL code base (required to make available to community)
* "Planned" releases, coordination, obvious OSS inertia and royalty savings
c.f. Windows
* Undifferentiated "subsidy" foundation for their "expensive" proprietary,
add-on products
* "Industry standard" APIs for add-on products (i) mitigating risk of 
drawing
of value-add products into the GPL, (ii) direct focus of OSS energy towards
slowing how much code flows into the GPL to preserve opportunity for 
expensive
add-on products.

Objectives:

Reduced potential negative PR to Microsoft, reinforce our message that we 
are
here now with customer solutions and question the customer value of this
announcement.

Actions:

Positioning:

1. The drive to build the Next Generation Internet is happening now.

* Microsoft always welcomes fair competition, as in the end this benefits
customers.
* Microsoft is in the best position today, to go after this business and 
solve
real customer business problems
* Microsoft focuses on customer solutions, rather than "fashion" 
technologies
* We have good relationships with Intel, IBM, HP and others who are having
great success solving business

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
MS-PCA 2599420

<hr />

customer needs today with Windows 2000.

2. Bad news for Sun & GPL

3. Old UNIX guard attempting to hijack Linux to go after Sun

* This will drive a wedge between the original Linux champions who are
for "free" software and the established commercial UNIX "old guard" further
confusing customers
* Old UNIX guard want to adopt the UNIX business model where they provide
proprietary differentiation on top of a common base as they realize they 
can't
add any competitive differentiation under the GPL.
* Appears to be business as usual for the fragmented UNIX market and very
reminiscent of previous UNIX alliances.

4. These types of alliances ultimately do not benefit customers and have
historically been prone to failure (OSF all over again for example)

* Customers want solutions today and clearly it will take a long time for 
this
new group to produce viable production quality, customer-ready solutions.
* Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux, himself recently said Linux was 5-10
years behind Windows.
* Linux and Open Source are supposed to be all about "free" technology and 
no
one group having competitive advantage. This new alliance seems to go 
against
these principles.
* What about HP-UX, IBM AIX and the IA-64 Monterey project? Are these dead? 
HP
and IBM have said in the past that those platforms are what they are using 
to
target the high-end UNIX segment.

Tactics:

* Confirm Compaq and Dell are not part of this announcement and are informed 
of
Microsoft's position. Owner: Compaq - jime, Dell adamso
* Inform Maureen O' Gara (Senior Editor Client Server News/LinuxGram) or 
John
Markoff (NYT) of announcement on Aug 28, 2000. Owner dougmil (Approval
received from BrianV to proceed)
* Contact Eric Raymond, Tim O'Reilly or Bruce Perrins to solicit support for
this going against the objectives of the Open Source movement. Owner: 
dougmil
[Doug Miller]. Note that I will not be doing this. Maureen O' Gara said she
was going to call them so it looks better coming from her.
* Issue "buddy mail" to target press list at the time of the announcement 
and
begin to proactively call-down to editors immediatley after announcement 
made.
Owner: davidmar
* Contact analysts (Summit Strategies or Creative Strategies) for their
assessment of implications. Owner: davidmar

Publication call-down:

potential press list only - confirmation required by Waggener Edstrom

[Contacts_xls]

Buddy Mail:

[icon]
Old UNIX guard
Hijacks Linux

Rude Q&A:

Q. So what does Microsoft think of this announcement?
A. Microsoft welcomes healthy competition but we don't see how this will
benefit customers. Groups like these typically take years to get their act
together -- for example OSF, the Open Group, iABI, the ACE initiative, the
UNIX SVR4 "Destiny" project, etc. Microsoft has solutions for customers 
today.

Q. What does this say about your OEM relationship?
A. Microsoft has healthy relationships with IBM, HP, Intel and have they
substantial successful businesses based around Windows solutions. I'm sure
their commitment to Microsoft technologies will not be affected by this
announcement.

Q. Is Microsoft developing a version of Office for Linux?
A. No, we have not seen volume demand for this in the commercial 
marketplace.

Q.There seems to be a momentum behind Linux based research from IDC and
Netcraft
A. Netcraft recently revised their methodology to more accurately describe
sites actually being used by customers. Windows and Linux have approximately
the same number of active sites however the big news is Microsoft technology
is running half of the servers that power the Internet. Many of these 
servers
are predominantly deployed within the Fortune 500 and other major businesses
around the world. IDC's recent research highlights the number of

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
MS-PCA 2599421

<hr />

copies of Linux distributed -- however given that Linux is free, this by no
means represents real-world usage of Linux as a production operating system.

Q. Does Microsoft have plans to open source any of it's products?
A. Microsoft have a number of source programs today for customers and
developers. We are continually listening to feedback from customers on how
best to help them provide great solutions on Windows platforms.

Questions for the press to ask OSDL:
Q. What about other UNIX offerings (AIX, HP/UX, Monterey) from the
participants?
Q. How does this play versus all the other announced initiatives (LSB, GNOME
Foundation, Trillian, etc...)
Q. This sounds like a closed club -- we thought the whole point of open 
source
was is open for anyone to join?
Q. Isn't OSDL simply another well-funded Redhat
Q. Does this indicate that RedHat's existing business model is untenable?
Q. Did OSDL founders consult Linux Torvald, Eric Raymond, Bruce Perens, et 
al.
re appropriateness and objectives of OSDL formation?
Q. What is the corporate structure of OSDL? Who owns it? Who controls it? 
Will
OSDL make the agreements between its founding members public?
Q. Can other companies join OSDL and, if so, what types of participation are
possible?
Q. Would OSDL consent to OSS community oversight?
Q. Who will control the work done by OSDL? Will OSDL work be "open" to 
public
inspection, i.e., conducted on the web with unrestricted public access? If
not, why not?
Q. Who will have ownership of IP relevant to code developed by OSDL? What 
about
code contributed to OSDL?
Q. Will all code released by OSDL be released under the GPL? If not, what 
code
will be subject to different terms/conditions, what terms/conditions will
apply, and who will decide what code to except from the GPL?
Q. How can OSDL avoid the code it releases being subject to the GPL if OSDL 
is
modifying GPL code?
Q. Will OSDL provide any representations/warranties/indemnification that 
code
released by OSDL is free from infringements?

Doug Miller mailto: [redacted]@microsoft.com
Microsoft Corporation / [redacted address, phone, fax, cell/pager number]

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
MS-PCA 2599422

<hr />

Publication             Type            Position                Disposition 
    First Name      Last Name       e-mail address
(addresses redacted)

ABCNews.com             Press                                               
    Johnathon       Dupe
Aberdeen                Analyst                                             
    Joe             Clabby
AP                      Press                                               
    Cliff           Edwards
AP                      Press                                               
    Michael         Martinez
AP                      Press                                               
    Martha          Mendoza
Bloomberg               Press                                               
    David           Ward
Boston Globe            Press                                               
    Hiawatha        Bray
Business Week           Press                                   Balanced     
   Mike            Moeller
Business Week           Press                                   Balanced     
   Dennis          Berman
Business Week           Press                                   Negative     
   Steve           Wildstrom
Business Week           Press                                               
    Jay             Greene
Business Week           Press                                               
    Steve           Haram
Business Week           Press                                               
    Kathy           Rebello
C/Net                   Press                                   Negative     
   Shankland       Stephen
C/Net                   Press                                               
    Stephanie       Miles
C/Net                   Review                                  Balanced     
   Jessica         Branson
Chicago Tribune         Press                                               
    James           Coates
CIO Magazine            Press                                               
    Polly           Schneider
CNBC                    Press                                               
    Renay           San Miguel
Computer Reseller News  Press                                   Balanced     
   Barb            Darrow
Computer Reseller News  Press                                   Negative     
   Paula           Rooney
Computer Reseller News  Review                                  Balanced     
   John            Yacena
Computer Reseller News  Review                                  Balanced     
   Eric            Eigar
Computer World          Press                                   Negative     
   David           Orenstein
Computer World          Press           Senior Writer                       
    Dominique       Declumyn
Computer World          Review                                  Balanced     
   Cynthia         Morgan
Computer World          Review                                  Balanced     
   Russell         Kay
Dallas Morning News     Press                                               
    Jean Nash       Johnson
DataQuest               Analyst                                 Balanced     
   Chris           Le Toq
DataQuest               Analyst                                 Balanced     
   Kim             Brown
Dow Jones               Press                                               
    Mark            Boslet
Dow Jones               Press                                               
    Rick            Jergends
Eastside Journal        Press                                               
    Clayton         Park
ENT Mag                 Press                                               
    Tom             Sullivan
ENT Mag                 Press                                               
    Brian           Ploskina
Fin. Times of London    Press                                   Louise       
   Kehoe
Forbes                  Press                                   Balanced     
   Julie           Pitla
Forbes                  Press                                               
    Elizabeth       Corcoran
Forbes                  Press                                               
    Dan             Lyons
Forbes                  Review                                  Negative     
   Steve           Manes
Fortune                 Press                                   Balanced     
   David           Kirkpatrick
Fortune                 Press                                   Negative     
   Jodi            Mardesich
Fortune                 Review                                  Negative     
   Joel            Dreyfuss
Gartner                 Analyst                                 Balanced     
   Joel            Barkin
Gartner                 Analyst                                 Negative     
   George          Weiss
Gartner                 Analyst                                             
    Kathryn         Russell
Gartner                 Analyst                                             
    Michael         Gartenberg
Giga                    Analyst                                 Balanced     
   Rob             Enderle
Giga                    Analyst                                 Negative     
   Stacy           Quandt
Houston Chronical       Press                                   Dwight       
   Silverman
IDC                     Analyst                                 Balanced     
   Bill            Peterson  (Went to Turbo Linux)
IDC                     Analyst                                 Negative     
   Dan             Kusnetzky
IDC                     Analyst                                             
    Al              Gillen
Industry Standard       Press                                               
    Alex            Lash
Information Week        Press                                   Balanced     
   Rick            Whitting
Information Week        Press                                               
    Aaron           Ricardela
Information Week        Press                                               
    Stephanie       Stahl
Information Week        Review                                  Balanced     
   Logan           Harbaugh
InfoWorld               Press           Editorial Director      Balanced     
   Ed              Scannell
InfoWorld               Press                                               
    Bob             Trott
InfoWorld               Review                                               
   Dan             Sommer
InfoWorld               Review                                  Balanced     
   John            Brodrick
InfoWorld               Review                                  Balanced     
   Mark            Pace
InfoWorld               Review                                               
   Kevin           Railsback
Interactive Week        Press                                               
    Charlie         Babcock
Internet Week           Press           Senior Editor                       
    Nick            Turner
LA Times                Press                                               
    Stanley         Holmes


HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
MS-PCA 2599423

<hr />


Meta                    Analyst                                 Balanced     
   Steve           Clayhans
Meta                    Analyst                                             
    Doug            Lynn    (Recommended by Mike Pettyjohn (Netcraft)
Meta                    Analyst                                             
    Peter           Firstbrook
MSNBC                   Press                                               
    Bob             Sullivan
MSNBC                   Press                                               
    Marty           Wolk
Network Computing       Review                                  Balanced     
   Art             Wittman
Network Computing       Review                                  Balanced     
   Fritz           Nelson
Network Computing       Review          Sr. Tech. Editor                     
   Ron             Anderson
Network Computing       Review          Contrib. Editor                     
    Peter           Morrisey
Network World           Press           Senior Editor                       
    John            Fontana
Network World           Review                                  Balanced     
   Lee             Schlesinger
New York Daily News     Press                                               
    Nancy           Dillon
New York Times          Press                                               
    Steve           Lohr
New York Times          Press                                               
    John            Markoff
New York Times          Review                                  Negative     
   Pete            Lewis
PC Magazine             Review                                  Balanced     
   Michael         Miller
PC Magazine             Review                                  Balanced     
   Steve           Rigney
PC Magazine             Review                                  Balanced     
   Ben             Gottesman
PC Magazine             Review                                  Balanced     
   David           Lidsky
PC Magazine             Review                                  Balanced     
   Steve           Buehler
PC Magazine             Review                                  Balanced     
   Larry Seltzer   Miller
PC Week                 Press                                   Balanced     
   Scott           Berinato
PC Week                 Review                                  Balanced     
   John            Teschek
PC Week                 Review                                  Balanced     
   Pankaj          Chowdhry
PC Week                 Review                                  Balanced     
   Henry           Baltazar
PC Week                 Press                                               
    Grant           Dubois
PC World                Press                                               
    Harry           McCracken
PC World                Press                                               
    Julian          Milenbach
PC World                Press                                               
    Scott           Spanbauer
Reuters                 Press                                               
    Dick            Satran
Reuters                 Press                                               
    Chris           Stetkiewicz
San Diego Unuin Tribune Press                                               
    Mike            Drummond
San Francisco Chronicle Press                                               
    Benny           Evangelista
San Francisco Examiner  Press                                               
    Al              Saracevic
San Jose Mercury News   Press                                               
    Cecilia         Kang
Seattle PI              Press                                               
    Dan             Richman
Seattle Times           Press                                               
    Paul            Andrews
Sm@rt Reseller          Press                                               
    Mary Jo         Foley
Small Bus. Tech. Report Press                                               
    Ramon           Ray
Tacoma News Tribune     Press                                               
    Christine       Carson
TechWeb                 Press           Software Editor                     
    Stuart          Glascock
Time                    Review                                  negative     
   Josh            Quittner
US News & World Report  Press                                               
    Susan Gregory   Thomas
USA Today               Press                                               
    Deborah         Solomon
USA Today               Review                                               
   Bruce           Schwartz
Wall Street Journal     Press                                   Balanced     
   David           Hamilton
Wall Street Journal     Press                                   Negative     
   Lee             Gomes
Wall Street Journal     Press           Staff Reporter                       
   David           Bank
Wall Street Journal     Review                                  Negative     
   Walt            Mossberg
Washington Post         Press                                               
    David           Streitfeld
Windows NT Magazine     Review                                               
   David           Chernicoff
Wired                   Press                                               
    John            Gartner
Wired                   Press                                               
    Chris           Jones
Wired                   Press                                               
    Chris           Oakes
Yankee Group            Analyst                                             
    Eric            Klein
ZD AnchorDesk           Press                                               
    Jesse           Berst
ZD AnchorDesk           Press                                               
    Liz             Enbysk
ZDNet                   Press                                               
    Lisa            Bowman

HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL
MS-PCA 2599424

<hr />

Subject: Old Guard UNIX hijacks Linux
Editor:

No doubt you have already heard the announcement of the latest Linux 
consortium
(ODL) between Intel, Red Hat, IBM, and HP.

The purpose of this email is to give you Microsoft's perspective on ODL:

1. The drive to build the Next Generation Internet is happening now
* Microsoft is in the best position today, to go after this business and 
solve
real customer business problems
* Microsoft focuses on customer solutions, rather than "fashion" 
technologies
* Microsoft welcomes fair competition as in the end this benefits customers
* We have excellent relationships with Intel, IBM, HP and others who are 
having
great success solving business customer needs today with Windows 2000.
2. Bad news for Sun & GPL
3. Old UNIX guard attempting to hijack Linux to go after Sun
* This will drive a wedge between the original Linux champions who are
for "free" software and the established commercial UNIX "old guard" further
confusing customers
* Old UNIX guard want to adopt the UNIX business model where they provide
proprietary differentiation on top of a common base as they realize they 
can't
add any competitive differentiation under the GPL
* Almost business as usual for the fragmented UNIX market and very 
reminiscent
of previous UNIX alliances.
4. The consortiums ultimately do not benefit customers and have historically
been prone to failure (OSF all over again for example)
* Customer want solutions today not have to wait for protagonists, politics 
and
glacial inefficiencies
* Linus himself recently said Linux was 5-10 years behind Windows.
* Linux and Open Source are supposed to be all about free technology and no 
one
group having competitive advantage
* What about HP-UX, IBM AIX and the IA-64 Monterey Project?  Are these now
dead? HP and IBM have said in the past that those platforms are what they 
are
using to target the high end UNIX segment.

Please let me know if you have any questions or would like to speak with a
Microsoft spokesperson. I would be happy to arrange this.

Best Regards,

MS-PCA 2599425
HIGHLY CONFIDENTIAL

On Apr 4, 1:13=A0pm, 7 <website_has_em...@www.enemygadgets.com> wrote:

> read more =BB

Less is more, idiot.  You catch the same head disease Rex Ballard has?

RL

"Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> schreef in bericht 
news:hp9kpk$sa$02$1@news.t-online.com...
> Joel wrote:
>
>> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>DFS wrote:
>>>> On 4/3/2010 6:41 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No windows connected to the internet can survive for any
>>>>> lenght of time without getting infected.
>>>>> This "lenght of time" ranging anywhere from some minutes to some
>>>>> weeks.
>>>>>
>>>>> But certainly not for any prolonged stretch of time
>>>>
>>>> You can tell yourself this until the day you die, but it won't ever be
>>>> true.
>>>
>>>You can lie about this until kingdom come, but you know that it is true.
>>
>>
>> Yeah, yeah, yeah - you have no evidence, just shut up.
>>
> Keep on outright lying, "Joel".
>
> Anyone with half a clue will laugh his ass off about your lies.
> Windows can't even be secured *with* AV software. And you in your infinite
> stupidity claim that you do *without* and get no malware.
>
> Hint: MS HQ might be interested in your "how to". Because they don't know
> how to achieve that trick you claim you do

You're clueless (again) Peter, a few users get infected, most have no 
problems.
This is because Windows 7 is the most secure Windows OS on this planet.
Built upon the proven security technologies in Windows Vista.
Multiple Active Firewall Policies,
DirectAccess,
BranchCache,
BitLocker To Go,
AppLocker,
AV from Microsoft Security Essentials
With every OS update a new version of the Microsoft malicious software 
removal tool.
As we know, Windows is the most attacked OS, because Windows has 90% + 
marketshare and Linux scriptkiddies and basementdwellers are known 
viruswriters!
Unix guru Andy Tanenbaum wrote:
[q]
"most attackers think hitting Windows offers a bigger bang for the buck so 
Windows simply gets attacked more."
[/q]
http://lists.virus.org/securecoding-0405/msg00035.html

>
> You are truly an imbecile of enormous proportions if you believe such
> bullshit lies would fly

You're such an angry twit, get professional help!!
b.t.w.
"Peter Köhlmann" is *not* your real name!, ya coward! 

"Ian Hilliard" <nospam@hilliardtech.com> schreef in bericht 
news:4bb7844b@news.x-privat.org...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Alex Stubbins wrote:
>> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".
>>
>
> Windows is the religion and Linux is the cure.

There are four basic steps to establishing a cult religion. They are;
Step 1: Pick a ridiculous icon.
Checking out the opposition was an absolute must for Linus. Every Tom, Dick 
and Harry was out there with a cult. It wasn't going to be easy to find an 
icon for the linux cult, so the linuxfux had to do some research. They were 
competing with ancestors, cosmic schemes, cows, rats, the sun, the moon, the 
earth, stars, snakes, turtles, planets, aliens, crystals, ufo's, light, 
dark, evil spirits, crying and/or bleeding statues, and goodness knows what 
else.

Step 2: Choose a name for your cult.
This was another tough one for Linus. Already there was Atheism, 
Transcendental Meditation, Hare Krishna, Theosophy, New Age, Order of the 
Solar Temple, Heaven's Gate, Rajneeshism, Aum Shinrikyo, Sri Chinmoy, Divine 
Light Mission, Vedanta Society, Krishnamurti Foundation of America, 
Eckankar, Bubba Free John, Hanuman Foundation, Sathya Sai Baba, 
Self-Realization Fellowship, Shree Gurudev Siddha, Sahaja Yoga, 3HO 
Foundation, Sikh Foundation of Yogi Bhajan, Maitreya, Witchcraft, Santeria, 
Voodoo, Camdumble, Palo Mayombe, Macumba, Abacua, Taoism, Totemism, 
Divination, Astrology, Fortune Telling, Tarot Cards, Palm Reading, White 
Magic, Black Magic, Wicca, Spiritism, Spiritualism... and the list goes on.
He didn't bother with names from the Japanese Pokemon. They'd all been done 
already. He tried some esoteric words from the dictionary, like 
"philogynist," "ontogenesis," "oneirology," and "philately," but finally he 
settled on... Linux. How earth-shatteringly bland.

Step 3: Define yourself.
This one was very easy for Linus. He could be "The Most Wonderful," "The 
Blessed," "The Incarnate," "The Most Magnificent." But he did try to avoid 
"Omnipotent." The word is very easily confused with "impotent" and he 
thought it may result in prospective believers thinking there's something 
wrong with his sex drive. Linus certainly did not want to give this 
impression, especially since it was sex he was after... "Could someone 
please try to finger me from overseas."
Linus tried to make some sort of attachment to someone important. Elvis was 
a very popular name and it had the potential to tip the scales in Linus' 
favour because of the obvious sexual connotations. Of course, as most 
linuxfux are gay, Liberace was definitely seriously considered.
A Silly word was also needed. Linus needed to think of a word that nobody 
had ever heard of before. This word was to add mystery to to his cult. 
"Zitbotty" was a main contender. So, all Linus' spiritual statements would 
come from someone no less than "The Most Magnificent Liberace Zitbotty 
Torvalds."
Fortunately for the entire world, Torvalds suffered a short lapse of sanity 
and decided to retain his identity as Linus Torvalds on the basis that the 
connection with the newly coined name of "Linux" was obvious to the 
converted. Torvalds considered that he did not need to be known as "The Most 
Magnificent Liberace Zitbotty Torvalds" since others were more than happy to 
place him on the pedestal of demi-godery... Cases in point;

Step 4: Write down your tenets.
This was also a very easy thing for Linus. His list of tenets are wholly 
contradictory, contain absolutely no logic whatsoever and contain lots of 
nonsensical words or real words that don't mean anything when put side by 
side.
By following this simple four step plan, it wasn't long before hundreds of 
loonies, freaks and whackos started flocking to Linus' door to carry out his 
every whim (and to finger him from overseas.) And just think, even though 
Linux is supposed to be "free," they hand out tons and tons of cash to buy 
Linus' dirty underwear.
Of course, Linus had to work on his cult once he'd got it going. He could 
have tried depriving his brainwashed followers of food, forcing them to work 
naked outside in winter, tie them up in chains with the dogs or make them 
eat his shit. It really didn't matter what he wanted to do to them. They 
would love it and they would come back for more! Just ask any Muslim how 
good self-deprivation feels. Linus' deprivation plot was diabolical in the 
extreme. As a result of the Linux OS, thousands upon thousands of rabid 
Linux followers (linuxfux) are now doomed to a life of trying to keep a 
pseudo-GUI running on an almost limitless supply of 386 DX33's... machines 
that the sane amongst us would not even consider for use as door stops or 
boat anchors. Yes, it's true... the life of the linuxfuck is consumed by the 
need to bombard vendors with thousands upon thousands of e-mails requesting 
Linux drivers for equipment that went into the dark ages twenty years ago... 
"or else we will not buy anything else from you."
Most of all, Linus instilled in his followers an intense paranoia by 
creating an imaginary enemy. Good examples that were available included 
America, the FBI, blacks, Cubans, Mexicans - anybody. Linus chose Bill Gates 
and Microsoft. Linus' followers rabidly believe that the enemy Bill Gates is 
responsible for things that are at least half believable - listening devices 
in public toilets, cameras in bathrooms... the list of possible enemy evils 
is endless. And don't forget, Bill Gates the enemy is responsible for 
absolutely everything that's bad - over-cooked dinner, a missing dog, a dead 
cat, the phone and electricity getting cut off - anything a linuxfuck can 
think of.
With a bit of work, Linus got himself featured on CNN and ABC, his followers 
hussled out the Salvation Army, the Hare Krishnas, the World Wildlife Fund 
and local bums from their areas. Linus was and is the centre of everyone's 
attention, due in part to linuxfux bombarding vendors with bleating please 
for drivers to support arcane hardware. And absolutely everyone, from film 
stars to media magnates, from corporate geniuses to vice-presidents, all 
want to buy Linus' dirty underwear so they may attain the spiritual Nirvana 
invoked by the inhalation of his week old, crusty bumsweat.

>
> Ian
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAku3hDoACgkQ0DzqJNlXtD4aYwCcDnGxgMHPZkS3P8mxh600Mmta
> B7AAn0CBMP6CnADfLGpCrI8HnmhWo6KU
> =jifs
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Peter "the retard" Kohlmann wrote:

> "Peter Köhlmann" <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> schreef in bericht
> news:hp9kpk$sa$02$1@news.t-online.com...
>> Joel wrote:
>>
>>> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
>>>>DFS wrote:
>>>>> On 4/3/2010 6:41 PM, Peter Köhlmann wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No windows connected to the internet can survive for any
>>>>>> lenght of time without getting infected.
>>>>>> This "lenght of time" ranging anywhere from some minutes to some
>>>>>> weeks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But certainly not for any prolonged stretch of time
>>>>>
>>>>> You can tell yourself this until the day you die, but it won't ever
>>>>> be true.
>>>>
>>>>You can lie about this until kingdom come, but you know that it is
>>>>true.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah, yeah, yeah - you have no evidence, just shut up.
>>>
>> Keep on outright lying, "Joel".
>>
>> Anyone with half a clue will laugh his ass off about your lies.
>> Windows can't even be secured *with* AV software. And you in your
>> infinite stupidity claim that you do *without* and get no malware.
>>
>> Hint: MS HQ might be interested in your "how to". Because they don't
>> know how to achieve that trick you claim you do
> 
> You're clueless (again) Peter, a few users get infected, most have no
> problems.

Tell that to MS. They might be interested

Idiot

>> You are truly an imbecile of enormous proportions if you believe such
>> bullshit lies would fly
> 
> You're such an angry twit, get professional help!!
> b.t.w.
> "Peter Köhlmann" is *not* your real name!, ya coward!

You are even dumber than RayLopez or Hadron Snot Quark if you believed 
that. 
Oh, wait, you are...
-- 
Meddle not in the affairs of Dragons, For thou art crunchy, and good
with ketchup!

Terry Porter pulled this Usenet boner:

> Infected In Twenty Minutes
> Scott Granneman, 2004-08-19
>
> What normally happens within twenty minutes? That's how long your average 
> unprotected PC running Windows XP, fresh out of the box, will last once 
> it's connected to the Internet. 
>
> Scott Granneman teaches at Washington University in St. Louis, consults 
> for WebSanity, and writes for SecurityFocus and Linux Magazine. His 
> latest book, Linux Phrasebook, is in stores now. 
> http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/262

That explains why Microsoft set up raw packet support in XP, then, in SP2,
disabled it:

   http://silverstr.ufies.org/blog/archives/000666.html

   There was nothing wrong with having raw socket support. What was wrong
   was the safeguards placed around it, and the access to the stack in such
   a way. In Unix environments you can limit raw socket access to root. And
   you can do the same thing for Windows through the System and
   Administrator security contexts. However, since most people are STILL
   running as Administrators instead of normal users, no wonder XP is a
   playground for 'attack tools'.

   Quite frankly I was slowly moving all my infosec forensic and analysis
   tools to Windows. There was almost no need to have a Linux box around
   when a XP + cygwin combo could do almost everything I needed. Now I gotta
   roll that back if I want some of the common functionality an information
   security professional will need from their OS.

   (2004)

-- 
You can rent this space for only $5 a week.

Terry Porter <linux-2@netspace.net.au> wrote:
>On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 16:15:09 +0200, Peter K�hlmann wrote:
>> Joel wrote:
>>> ToolPackinMama <philnblanc@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> 
>>>>> Almost daily, someone posts that it's basically, or outright,
>>>>> impossible to use Windows securely
>>>>
>>>>Do you think that's untrue?  If so, please explain how one can use
>>>>Windows securely.
>>> 
>>> Use of a router, or at least a software firewall.
>
>Every single ADSL modem is a firewall via it's use of NAT, so most 
>Windows users already have one.


Uh, I used ADSL for a long time, and when I had it directly connected
to my box (for about the first year), it received incoming connections
no differently from the OS/apps' perspective than a dial-up modem.
Feel free to actually say something that isn't stupid.


>And they're not helping. No point fitting a deadlock to your front door, 
>then inviting a criminal inside yourself.


Blah, blah, blah.  You're just some redneck moron.  Either you really
believe the garbage you spew, or you're just psychotic enough to troll
with it - neither impress me.


>>>  Not pirating
>>> software.
>
>A very good point. The only way to *not* get viruses, worms or trojans, 
>is to use software that is *impossible* to pirate.
>
>GPL'd Linux software is imossible to pirate, so use that.


Uh huh.


>>>  Keeping vulnerable software updated.  That's basically *all*
>>> I do - I have not run anti-malware software since XP SP2 came out, for
>>> example.
>> 
>> In short: Your beloved windows is infected with dozens of malware
>
>'joel' is probably a cybercrim, whose sole interest is to help spread 
>Windows viruses by advertising anti-virus measures that don't actually 
>work.


Heh, OK.  Suicide and reincarnation are your only prayer, genetic-
defective maniac.

-- 
Joel Crump

Peter K�hlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:

>>>>>Well, you claim to have no malware, even without AV software.
>>>>>
>>>>>Obviously a blatant lie
>>>> 
>>>> Ridiculous.  Show some evidence why that would necessarily be the
>>>> case.
>>>
>>>Idiot
>> 
>> Hahaha, you dumb ass.  You put up such a great facade, but when it
>> comes down to anything meaningful, you give a one-word response,
>> running away like a little baby.
>
>What part of "idiot" was too difficult for you to understand?


The part of it that SUPPORTED YOUR ASSERTION, *IDIOT*.


>> In other words, I have no malware, just like I said, and your calling
>> me a liar makes you an "idiot".  Congrats, Peter. :)
>
>In other words, only an idiot of incredible proportions would claim such 
>imbecile garbage like "Ridiculous.  Show some evidence why that would 
>necessarily be the case." 
>
>Especially given the fact that windows can't even be properly secured  
>*with* AV software


Uh huh.  Very convincing, coming from a rabid liar like you.

-- 
Joel Crump

Joel wrote:

> Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> wrote:
> 
>>>>>>Well, you claim to have no malware, even without AV software.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Obviously a blatant lie
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ridiculous.  Show some evidence why that would necessarily be the
>>>>> case.
>>>>
>>>>Idiot
>>> 
>>> Hahaha, you dumb ass.  You put up such a great facade, but when it
>>> comes down to anything meaningful, you give a one-word response,
>>> running away like a little baby.
>>
>>What part of "idiot" was too difficult for you to understand?
> 
> 
> The part of it that SUPPORTED YOUR ASSERTION, *IDIOT*.
 
What assertion? That was a (very well founded) opinion. You are an idiot, 
although at the same time I have to ask the real idiots to forgive me for 
comparing a cretin like you to them. They simply don't deserve to be 
insulted that grossly

>>> In other words, I have no malware, just like I said, and your calling
>>> me a liar makes you an "idiot".  Congrats, Peter. :)
>>
>>In other words, only an idiot of incredible proportions would claim such
>>imbecile garbage like "Ridiculous.  Show some evidence why that would
>>necessarily be the case."
>>
>>Especially given the fact that windows can't even be properly secured
>>*with* AV software
> 
> 
> Uh huh.  Very convincing, coming from a rabid liar like you.
> 

If I am a "rabid liar", what would that make you? I am fairly certain that 
a description for your continous lies has yet to be invented.

Pray tell, does your mama still believe anything at all from you, or has 
she also given up altogether?

-- 
All things are possible, except skiing thru a revolving door.

On 2010-04-03, Alex Stubbins <darklinkxxxx@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> Does anyone have any idea of how Linux became such a "religion".

    It does take a bit of determination to go against the herd.

    Standing up against a bunch of wannabe Nero's is not trivial.

-- 
	Sophocles wants his cut.                                |||
                                                               / | \

On 2010-04-03, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 4/3/2010 10:46 AM, Joel wrote:
>> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>
>>> Well so what? Office isn't 100% compatible with Office.
>>
>>
>> Exactly.  The more I learn about it (there was just this week a
>> discussion in alt.windows7.general about Outlook, which frankly blew
>> my mind with just how broken it is *by design*), the more I find it
>> simply unbelievable that people not only tolerate the crapware-ness,
>> but *pay* through the *nose* for the privilege.
>
>
> What's broken about it?  And you're one broke-ass guy if you think MS 
> Office costs a lot.

    If I don't really need it, then any price is too much.

    I should not be forced into buying anything ever.

[deletia]

    The difference between a market leader and a monopoly is that you 
can ignore a monopoly.

-- 
	Sophocles wants his cut.                                |||
                                                               / | \

On 2010-04-03, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 4/3/2010 4:48 AM, Joel wrote:
>
>> I have
>> *zealously* attacked Microsoft Office, and proclaimed my preference
>> for OpenOffice, multiple times (just the other day, in
>> alt.windows7.general, a Linux user added microsoft.public.outlook to a
>> thread, and I dissed MSO right there in that part of the thread - I
>> make no bones about my hatred of it).
>
>
> Your hatred of MS Office is ignorant and irrational (one day you'll 
> learn that), and doubtless based on money.

    Who needs hatred? You can merely not like it, not want it and not 
want to use it. In a non-communist economy, it really shouldn't matter.

-- 
	Sophocles wants his cut.                                |||
                                                               / | \

JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:

> On 2010-04-03, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 4/3/2010 10:46 AM, Joel wrote:
>>> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well so what? Office isn't 100% compatible with Office.
>>>
>>>
>>> Exactly.  The more I learn about it (there was just this week a
>>> discussion in alt.windows7.general about Outlook, which frankly blew
>>> my mind with just how broken it is *by design*), the more I find it
>>> simply unbelievable that people not only tolerate the crapware-ness,
>>> but *pay* through the *nose* for the privilege.
>>
>>
>> What's broken about it?  And you're one broke-ass guy if you think MS 
>> Office costs a lot.
>
>     If I don't really need it, then any price is too much.
>
>     I should not be forced into buying anything ever.
>
> [deletia]
>
>     The difference between a market leader and a monopoly is that you 
> can ignore a monopoly.


More nonsense from the Edward Lear of COLA.

On 2010-04-05, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:
>
>> On 2010-04-03, DFS <nospam@dfs_.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/3/2010 10:46 AM, Joel wrote:
>>>> spike1@freenet.co.uk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well so what? Office isn't 100% compatible with Office.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Exactly.  The more I learn about it (there was just this week a
>>>> discussion in alt.windows7.general about Outlook, which frankly blew
>>>> my mind with just how broken it is *by design*), the more I find it
>>>> simply unbelievable that people not only tolerate the crapware-ness,
>>>> but *pay* through the *nose* for the privilege.
>>>
>>>
>>> What's broken about it?  And you're one broke-ass guy if you think MS 
>>> Office costs a lot.
>>
>>     If I don't really need it, then any price is too much.
>>
>>     I should not be forced into buying anything ever.
>>
>> [deletia]
>>
>>     The difference between a market leader and a monopoly is that you 
>> can ignore a monopoly.
>
>
> More nonsense from the Edward Lear of COLA.

   Yes. We all know that you would rather be Bill's bitch and be 
lead around on a leash. Not everyone finds that position very 
appealing though.

-- 
	Sophocles wants his cut.                                |||
                                                               / | \