dumbass@home wrote:

>"Josef Moellers" wrote:
>>
>> I 100% agree to you. Let everyone chose the OS that they want to use. Let
>> no-one interfere e.g. by making documents accessible only to those using
>> office systems of one manufacturer. Let no-one interfere e.g. by making
>> web sites accessible only to those using browsers of one manufacturer. Let
>> no-one interfere e.g. by making hardware accessible only to those using
>> OSes of one manufacturer.
>
>Why do you want to remove choice from the people above?
>What do you have against free choice?
>Where does it say that if I want to build a site I should have to cater for
>everyone?
>Why do you want choice but deny it to others?

You are even more fsckwitted than I thought, dumbass.

He's not talking about "forcing" Joe Blow to make his little Web site
usable by the entire planet. However, important things, the things of
commerce and government and education, need to be reasonably available
to all who need to use them, without forcing them to go out and
purchase "product X".

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> That's a Roy Schestowitz administered site so I will not go there for fear
> of getting a virus or trojan or something.
>
Must be awful living in a constant state of fear of visiting websites
because of the possibility of getting "a virus or trojan or something". I
guess that is just part of the Windoze experience. It's very much like Bush
and the neocons, keeping everyone in fear of terrorist attacks as a way to
better control people. Does Vista have a gadget that presents homeland
security color-coded security alerts when surfing the web? If not, it
should.

Use Windoze and Be Afraid, Be Very Afraid.

Cheers.

--
The world can't afford the rich.

alt.os.linux.ubuntu - where the lunatic Hadron is a "Linux advocate"

Francis (Frank) adds a new "gadget" to his Vista box ...
Download it here: http://tinyurl.com/2hnof6

* dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

> "Josef Moellers" wrote in message
> news:fsvprq$ns1$1@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...
>
>> I 100% agree to you. Let everyone chose the OS that they want to use. Let
>> no-one interfere e.g. by making documents accessible only to those using
>> office systems of one manufacturer. Let no-one interfere e.g. by making
>> web sites accessible only to those using browsers of one manufacturer. Let
>> no-one interfere e.g. by making hardware accessible only to those using
>> OSes of one manufacturer.
>
> Why do you want to remove choice from the people above?

How do you get /that/ interpretation of the above, dennis-at-home?

> What do you have against free choice?

Nothing. Yet you spin his words as if they mean the opposite.

Why are you doing this, dennis-at-home?

> Where does it say that if I want to build a site I should have to cater for
> everyone?

But, /now/ you are saying /you/ want the option of "removing choice".

Is it me that is confused, or you?

> Why do you want choice but deny it to others?

Ah, it is you that is confused.

--
Until we're educating every kid in a fantastic way, until every inner city
is cleaned up, there is no shortage of things to do.
-- Bill Gates

Linonut writes:

> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> "Josef Moellers" wrote in message
>> news:fsvprq$ns1$1@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...
>>
>>> I 100% agree to you. Let everyone chose the OS that they want to use. Let
>>> no-one interfere e.g. by making documents accessible only to those using
>>> office systems of one manufacturer. Let no-one interfere e.g. by making
>>> web sites accessible only to those using browsers of one manufacturer. Let
>>> no-one interfere e.g. by making hardware accessible only to those using
>>> OSes of one manufacturer.
>>
>> Why do you want to remove choice from the people above?
>
> How do you get /that/ interpretation of the above, dennis-at-home?
>
>> What do you have against free choice?
>
> Nothing. Yet you spin his words as if they mean the opposite.
>
> Why are you doing this, dennis-at-home?
>
>> Where does it say that if I want to build a site I should have to cater for
>> everyone?
>
> But, /now/ you are saying /you/ want the option of "removing choice".

No. He wants the choice for who HE caters to. How is that so hard for
even a thicky like you to comprehend?

>
> Is it me that is confused, or you?
>

It's you. As usual.

>> Why do you want choice but deny it to others?
>
> Ah, it is you that is confused.


No. He makes perfect sense.


--
revision 1.17.2.7
date: 2001/05/31 21:32:44; author: branden; state: Exp; lines: +1 -1
ARRRRGH!! GOT THE G** D*** SENSE OF A F******* TEST BACKWARDS!

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:10:53 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:

>> Even if Linux is in the less-than-1%-area: each and every Linux-user
>> uses it because of its merits, not because it came bundeled with the
>> computer they bought or someone forces them to use it. Some people
>> (including me) even use it *against* pressure from higher places to use
>> another OS.
>>
>> *That's* the difference.
>
> Noble, however most people just want to get work done not go on some
> religious pilgrimage.

BTW I wasn't fishing for compliments, I was trying to say that even
without a multi-billion advertising campaign, even with the windo
ocasionally blowing right into our faces, at least one in 163 desktops
is running Linux!

--
These are my personal views and not those of Fujitsu Siemens Computers!
Josef Möllers (Pinguinpfleger bei FSC)
If failure had no penalty success would not be a prize (T. Pratchett)
Company Details: http://www.fujitsu-siemens.com/imprint.html

Hadron wrote:

> Linonut writes:
>
>> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>> "Josef Moellers" wrote in message
>>> news:fsvprq$ns1$1@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...
>>>
>>>> I 100% agree to you. Let everyone chose the OS that they want to use.
>>>> Let no-one interfere e.g. by making documents accessible only to those
>>>> using office systems of one manufacturer. Let no-one interfere e.g. by
>>>> making web sites accessible only to those using browsers of one
>>>> manufacturer. Let no-one interfere e.g. by making hardware accessible
>>>> only to those using OSes of one manufacturer.
>>>
>>> Why do you want to remove choice from the people above?
>>
>> How do you get /that/ interpretation of the above, dennis-at-home?
>>
>>> What do you have against free choice?
>>
>> Nothing. Yet you spin his words as if they mean the opposite.
>>
>> Why are you doing this, dennis-at-home?
>>
>>> Where does it say that if I want to build a site I should have to cater
>>> for everyone?
>>
>> But, /now/ you are saying /you/ want the option of "removing choice".
>
> No. He wants the choice for who HE caters to. How is that so hard for
> even a thicky like you to comprehend?
>
>>
>> Is it me that is confused, or you?
>>
>
> It's you. As usual.
>
>>> Why do you want choice but deny it to others?
>>
>> Ah, it is you that is confused.
>
>
> No. He makes perfect sense.
>
>
All the Wintards around here make perfect sense to you Hardon. Then again,
you're a Linux advocate - the principled kind - the non-COLA kind - the too
many distros kind - the attack FOSS kind. Anyway, you get the idea.

Cheers.

--
The world can't afford the rich.

alt.os.linux.ubuntu - where the lunatic Hadron is a "Linux advocate"

Francis (Frank) adds a new "gadget" to his Vista box ...
Download it here: http://tinyurl.com/2hnof6

On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:20:54 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:

> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>> On Wed, 02 Apr 2008 09:10:53 +0200, Josef Moellers wrote:
>
>>> Even if Linux is in the less-than-1%-area: each and every Linux-user
>>> uses it because of its merits, not because it came bundeled with the
>>> computer they bought or someone forces them to use it. Some people
>>> (including me) even use it *against* pressure from higher places to use
>>> another OS.
>>>
>>> *That's* the difference.
>>
>> Noble, however most people just want to get work done not go on some
>> religious pilgrimage.
>
> BTW I wasn't fishing for compliments, I was trying to say that even
> without a multi-billion advertising campaign, even with the windo
> ocasionally blowing right into our faces, at least one in 163 desktops
> is running Linux!

Linux desktop useage hovers areoun 0.6 percent.
The BBC pegged it at 0.8 percent, which I think is a little high.

After 10+ years and considering Linux is free, that's pathetic.

--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

NoStop wrote:

>Quack puked:
>>
>>>> Why do you want choice but deny it to others?
>>>
>>> Ah, it is you that is confused.
>>
>> No. He makes perfect sense.

You are lying, Quack, as he does he NOT make "perfect" sense, Quack.

As explained, an unimportant Web-site is not the issue. If someone
wants to make a completely fscked-up Web-site, so that only some can
view it, that IS and SHOULD BE their choice.

However, if someone is making a Web site that I NEED to use, for
whatever reason, then they had better allow me, THE USER, the choice
of tools to access it.

Would you really like it if the government required Internet Explorer
to access tax documents, Quack? Don't answer - you probably would.

>All the Wintards around here make perfect sense to you Hardon. Then again,
>you're a Linux advocate - the principled kind - the non-COLA kind - the too
>many distros kind - the attack FOSS kind. Anyway, you get the idea.

Indeed, we all do, I think.

"Josef Moellers" wrote in message
news:ft02v4$pg2$1@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...
> dennis@home wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Josef Moellers" wrote in message
>> news:fsvprq$ns1$1@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...
>>
>>
>>> I 100% agree to you. Let everyone chose the OS that they want to use.
>>> Let no-one interfere e.g. by making documents accessible only to those
>>> using office systems of one manufacturer. Let no-one interfere e.g. by
>>> making web sites accessible only to those using browsers of one
>>> manufacturer. Let no-one interfere e.g. by making hardware accessible
>>> only to those using OSes of one manufacturer.
>>
>> Why do you want to remove choice from the people above?
>> What do you have against free choice?
>> Where does it say that if I want to build a site I should have to cater
>> for everyone?
>> Why do you want choice but deny it to others?
>
> You do have a point there, but, personally speaking, if I have to choose
> (pun intended) between *me* having access to information and *others*
> choosing a feature (or maybe just using whatever they got when they bought
> their PC), I'd rather settle for me having access.
>
> Then there is the question whether people really choose to use DOC or
> ActiveX controls or if this was pre-configured and they don't chnage this?
> Maybe some of us think that someone who has so much power to force
> technology onto people should have the moral obligation to make the
> specification for such technology available, so that *all* people can have
> access to the information available.
> Why can't Microsoft use existing standards (ODF)

M$ decided it wasn't extensible enough AFAIK. I am not an expert so I
couldn't be sure.

> but had to force yet another standard (OOXML) which will continue to make
> documents unaccessible to those *not* using their programs? Most likely,
> OOXML will become the default file format when storing office documents
> and most likeley people will just click "Save" rather than first select a
> different format.

But as the OOXML format is an iso standard anyone can read or write it. If
other developers don't support it then blame them. All the other formats
have been published too.

"chrisv" wrote in message
news:rk37v35cl1picl9uhnae8esj3au1gkcko8@4ax.com...
> dumbass@home wrote:

Sod off!

"Linonut" wrote in message
news:JtMIj.160$DY1.17@bignews5.bellsouth.net...
> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>> "Josef Moellers" wrote in message
>> news:fsvprq$ns1$1@nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com...
>>
>>> I 100% agree to you. Let everyone chose the OS that they want to use.
>>> Let
>>> no-one interfere e.g. by making documents accessible only to those using
>>> office systems of one manufacturer. Let no-one interfere e.g. by making
>>> web sites accessible only to those using browsers of one manufacturer.
>>> Let
>>> no-one interfere e.g. by making hardware accessible only to those using
>>> OSes of one manufacturer.
>>
>> Why do you want to remove choice from the people above?
>
> How do you get /that/ interpretation of the above, dennis-at-home?
>
>> What do you have against free choice?
>
> Nothing. Yet you spin his words as if they mean the opposite.
>
> Why are you doing this, dennis-at-home?
>
>> Where does it say that if I want to build a site I should have to cater
>> for
>> everyone?
>
> But, /now/ you are saying /you/ want the option of "removing choice".
>
> Is it me that is confused, or you?
>
>> Why do you want choice but deny it to others?
>
> Ah, it is you that is confused.

I bet you feel stupid that you posted that cr@p.

* dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

> But as the OOXML format is an iso standard anyone can read or write it.

Perhaps, if the standard is truly complete.

However, if Microsoft decides to implement certain features differently
than is specified in the published standard, and the standard is not
updated in a timely fashion, consumers and developers using that
standard are back to where they are now: using MS Office itself, or
accepting formatting problems to appear when the document is loaded into
other word processors.

>If other developers don't support it then blame them.

Given Microsoft's long track record of breaking their own rules, and
their recent rumblings about patents, I sure would get a LOT of legal
advice before even considering writing a product to handle a Microsoft
format.

And, in fact, the Microsoft "promise" seems geared to require the usual
agreements and license fees for commercial development.

> All the other formats have been published too.

Wayyyyyy too late to be very helpful. Microsoft's need for those
formats to get its office stranglehold ended long ago. And yet they
still delayed and delayed until hit with huge fines.

--
I have to say that in 1981, making those decisions, I felt like I was
providing enough freedom for 10 years. That is, a move from 64k to 640k felt
like something that would last a great deal of time. Well, it didn't - it
took about only 6 years before people started to see that as a real problem.
-- Bill Gates, 1989 speech on the history of the microcomputer industry.

* dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:

>> Ah, it is you that is confused.
>
> I bet you feel stupid that you posted that cr@p.

What crap?

--
The finest pieces of software are those where one individual has a complete
sense of exactly how the program works. To have that, you have to really
love the program and concentrate on keeping it simple, to an incredible
degree.
-- Bill Gates

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut

wrote
on Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:54:35 -0400
:
> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:
>
>>> Ah, it is you that is confused.
>>
>> I bet you feel stupid that you posted that cr@p.
>
> What crap?
>

I would think that the question of whether a web designer
should have the choice of excluding 5%[*] or so of his
potential browsers is an interesting one. It may depend
on the competitiveness of his desired market; if he decides
to exclude non-Windows browsers and his competitors don't,
and he is not the market leader, he'll probably get some
rather bad press from it all.
[*] the actual number is very squirrelly.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
If your CPU can't stand the heat, get another fan.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
news:136dc5-2fp.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
>
> wrote
> on Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:54:35 -0400
> :
>> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>
>>>> Ah, it is you that is confused.
>>>
>>> I bet you feel stupid that you posted that cr@p.
>>
>> What crap?
>>
>
> I would think that the question of whether a web designer
> should have the choice of excluding 5%[*] or so of his
> potential browsers is an interesting one. It may depend
> on the competitiveness of his desired market; if he decides
> to exclude non-Windows browsers and his competitors don't,
> and he is not the market leader, he'll probably get some
> rather bad press from it all.
>
>[*] the actual number is very squirrelly.

However it should be the web site owners choice.

I wonder if lino (lino is an old fashioned oil based floor covering BTW) nut
understands why he wrote a load of cr@p yet?

Moshe Goldfarb wrote:

> That's a Roy Schestowitz administered site so I will not go there for fear
> of getting a virus or trojan or something.

Run Linux. You won't have to worry.

> My advice to anyone is to use the OS that supports the applications you
> need to run.

Linux runs all the applications you need to run.

Except for "viruses or trojans or something".

*snicker*

> IOW choose your applications first and then your OS.

That's about the damned dumbest thing I've ever read. Like saying
"build a nice roof, then put a house under it".

Intelligent people start with a solid foundation. Being A Wintard
I'm sure that's a tough concept to wrap your brain around, but it's
true.

On Wed, 2 Apr 2008 23:20:32 +0200 (CEST), Anonymous wrote:

> Moshe Goldfarb wrote:
>
>> That's a Roy Schestowitz administered site so I will not go there for fear
>> of getting a virus or trojan or something.
>
> Run Linux. You won't have to worry.

Sure.

Tell that to Roy Schestowitz who had his LINUX based website hacked and
0wned a couple of weeks ago.


>> My advice to anyone is to use the OS that supports the applications you
>> need to run.
>
> Linux runs all the applications you need to run.

No it doesn't.
And it doesn't for a vast number of people which is why virtually nobody is
using it as a desktop system.


> Except for "viruses or trojans or something".
>
> *snicker*

See Roy Schestowitz who had a trojan embedded in his website and was
infecting God knows how many users who visted him.

>> IOW choose your applications first and then your OS.
>
> That's about the damned dumbest thing I've ever read. Like saying
> "build a nice roof, then put a house under it".

Really?
You've obviously never worked in Information Technology.
Living in your mother's basement doesn't qualify BTW.

> Intelligent people start with a solid foundation. Being A Wintard
> I'm sure that's a tough concept to wrap your brain around, but it's
> true.

Wrong.
Intelligent people choose the applications they need to run and then pick
the OS.
Why?
What if a certain application you need doesn't have say a Linux version?
Then what Jack?
Duhhhhh...... You're not very good at trolling BTW...

Next..............


--
Moshe Goldfarb
Collector of soaps from around the globe.
Please visit The Hall of Linux Idiots:
http://linuxidiots.blogspot.com/

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, dennis@home

wrote
on Wed, 2 Apr 2008 22:19:54 +0100
:
>
>
> "The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
> news:136dc5-2fp.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Linonut
>>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:54:35 -0400
>> :
>>> * dennis@home peremptorily fired off this memo:
>>>
>>>>> Ah, it is you that is confused.
>>>>
>>>> I bet you feel stupid that you posted that cr@p.
>>>
>>> What crap?
>>>
>>
>> I would think that the question of whether a web designer
>> should have the choice of excluding 5%[*] or so of his
>> potential browsers is an interesting one. It may depend
>> on the competitiveness of his desired market; if he decides
>> to exclude non-Windows browsers and his competitors don't,
>> and he is not the market leader, he'll probably get some
>> rather bad press from it all.
>>
>>[*] the actual number is very squirrelly.
>
> However it should be the web site owners choice.

Indeed it should be, and the only caveat is that the
browser outside the market get an indication that there
will be malfunctions in his browser if he continues,
and that he does so at his own risk. Lockouts are also
acceptable (barely); one would assume the user would
go to the site's competitor in that case.

However, this also opens the door to an interesting
form of manipulation; Microsoft might very well want to
persuade popular sites to use its tools, and having them
make IE-specific changes.

>
> I wonder if lino (lino is an old fashioned oil based
> floor covering BTW) nut understands why he wrote a
> load of cr@p yet?
>

You'll have to ask him. Not my day to read his mind. ;-)

Confirmed on the "Lino", which is short for "linoleum"
in one disambiguation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lino
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linoleum

Unknown as to the use of linseed oil in dessert toppings
or floor waxes.

--
#191, ewill3@earthlink.net
Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
to fix your Windows problems?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

chrisv wrote:

> Would you really like it if the government required Internet Explorer
> to access tax documents, Quack? *Don't answer - you probably would.

In Australia, the Tax Office developed a proprietary solution to online tax
returns (ETAX). It requires the use of Internet Explorer. I've written to
the politicians a number of times on this issue and now they are developing
a web-based online tax return system.

The disadvantage of using a paper return is that you can wait a month or
more for it to be processed, whereas the online tax return is processed
within a fortnight.

--
Regards,

Gregory.
Gentoo Linux - Penguin Power