You're the kind of bozo that probably cheered when chinese tanks ran over the student protestors in tianemen square back in 91/92. After all, it IS illegal to demostrate without authority in that country, and certainly death is a common punishment there.
Question is not whether MS broke the law. The law is absurd, example? How many laws do you break in a day? Well, are you married? Have sex with your spouse? Probably broke the law. I guess we shouldn't have any sympathy when the government thugs come for you, after all congress hasn't repealed the anti-sex laws.. Question is whether it is right.
And I didn't say MS didn't have a %100 monopoly I said you can't prove MS even has a majority monopoly. How can you prove that of all the machines out there most of them run windows? Most of them could be running linux, there is simply no way to tell. Most machines ship with windows but you don't even need to see it you can just boot your machine with a linux cd and install it instead. So not being able to prove a company has a monopoly is the same thing as no monopoly.
Since you're so wrong yea.
1. MS being a monopoly of OSes doesn't make any sense. How does anyone know that every single machine that came with windows is not currently running linux? That would make linux the monopoly, wouldn't it? I mean linux doesn't keep figures of how many copies are out there because it's free, so it's legal to burn it to a cd and give it to a friend, stick on your ftp server and let people download. So how do we know the entire world isn't really running linux? =) You cannot even prove MS is a monopoly, until you audit every single machine running today, or most of them. This is a non-serious argument, but it just goes to show how easy it is to not use MS, it's nothing like being forced to use one long distance company. If you don't like MS go download linux, what free alternative to Bell was there when it was ruled an monopoly, besides shouting really loud..? No, this is just a case of a bunch of loud crybabies trying to ruin it for all the happy windows users because their OS doesn't support as many devices, configurations, etc.
2. Some unix OS makers make all of the pieces that are bundled with their OS, and it's not easy to change the default software in some cases, certainly no easier than it would be to do so in an MS OS. And how exactly is it you can't specify to use netscape instead of internet explorer? Hell the OS even allows you to change the default link launcher, so you can make sure you are running netscape everytime you click a link... Sounds like it allows you to do what you said it doesn't.
3. The constitution is even older. Just because a law is unconstitutional for 100 years doesn't make it more constitutional. Hell racists laws were on the books for 100 years, those were good too?
4. Unix OS makers actively seek to put competition out of business, too. Just like every other damn company. what is this disney world?? You're probably shocked to hear soldiers actually fight on the battlefield and not engage is point debates, too.
No MS-Basher can debate my points, that is a fact, you pathetic loser. I sugguest you go read the U.S. constitution, unless you agree with the decss judge that software isn't speech, it seems to guarentee MS' right to make/bundle whatever it wants.
> distributed to every person in the channel.
or you could pick and choose who to add to your irc keyring.. but now that I think about it, encrypting a message for as many people as you find on a busy irc channel with rsa might take quite a bit of processor power, it was a nice idea tho =P.
Why not use public key encryption with irc? Ie, each users client creates a private/public key when connecting to the server, and gives the server the public key. Everytime you join a channel, every user in that channel downloads your public key, every message they type gets encrypted with every public key (I believe this can be done so that if you encrypt by password a, b, and c, either a, b, or c can decrypt, alone) and distributed to every person in the channel. Your client decrypts with your private key. Same for private message, and then you don't have to worry about the admin sniffing because he can't.
Sound workable? It would be more processor intensive, but at those transmission speeds (as fast as a human can type) that really isn't an issue even for a 386.
Slashdot Mirror
Yea, it's so integrated you can delete iexplorer.exe, set your shell to cmd.exe or any number of 3rd party replacement shells and happily compute on..
Linux of course, everybody knows it never crashes, has a great GUI and support from all 3rd party device manufacturers.
You're going to pay something if you don't have an internet connection. Ok, forget linux, what about the other non-free unixes, mac os, beos, etc?
You're the kind of bozo that probably cheered when chinese tanks ran over the student protestors in tianemen square back in 91/92. After all, it IS illegal to demostrate without authority in that country, and certainly death is a common punishment there. Question is not whether MS broke the law. The law is absurd, example? How many laws do you break in a day? Well, are you married? Have sex with your spouse? Probably broke the law. I guess we shouldn't have any sympathy when the government thugs come for you, after all congress hasn't repealed the anti-sex laws.. Question is whether it is right. And I didn't say MS didn't have a %100 monopoly I said you can't prove MS even has a majority monopoly. How can you prove that of all the machines out there most of them run windows? Most of them could be running linux, there is simply no way to tell. Most machines ship with windows but you don't even need to see it you can just boot your machine with a linux cd and install it instead. So not being able to prove a company has a monopoly is the same thing as no monopoly.
Since you're so wrong yea. 1. MS being a monopoly of OSes doesn't make any sense. How does anyone know that every single machine that came with windows is not currently running linux? That would make linux the monopoly, wouldn't it? I mean linux doesn't keep figures of how many copies are out there because it's free, so it's legal to burn it to a cd and give it to a friend, stick on your ftp server and let people download. So how do we know the entire world isn't really running linux? =) You cannot even prove MS is a monopoly, until you audit every single machine running today, or most of them. This is a non-serious argument, but it just goes to show how easy it is to not use MS, it's nothing like being forced to use one long distance company. If you don't like MS go download linux, what free alternative to Bell was there when it was ruled an monopoly, besides shouting really loud..? No, this is just a case of a bunch of loud crybabies trying to ruin it for all the happy windows users because their OS doesn't support as many devices, configurations, etc. 2. Some unix OS makers make all of the pieces that are bundled with their OS, and it's not easy to change the default software in some cases, certainly no easier than it would be to do so in an MS OS. And how exactly is it you can't specify to use netscape instead of internet explorer? Hell the OS even allows you to change the default link launcher, so you can make sure you are running netscape everytime you click a link... Sounds like it allows you to do what you said it doesn't. 3. The constitution is even older. Just because a law is unconstitutional for 100 years doesn't make it more constitutional. Hell racists laws were on the books for 100 years, those were good too? 4. Unix OS makers actively seek to put competition out of business, too. Just like every other damn company. what is this disney world?? You're probably shocked to hear soldiers actually fight on the battlefield and not engage is point debates, too.
No MS-Basher can debate my points, that is a fact, you pathetic loser. I sugguest you go read the U.S. constitution, unless you agree with the decss judge that software isn't speech, it seems to guarentee MS' right to make/bundle whatever it wants.
> distributed to every person in the channel. or you could pick and choose who to add to your irc keyring.. but now that I think about it, encrypting a message for as many people as you find on a busy irc channel with rsa might take quite a bit of processor power, it was a nice idea tho =P.
Why not use public key encryption with irc? Ie, each users client creates a private/public key when connecting to the server, and gives the server the public key. Everytime you join a channel, every user in that channel downloads your public key, every message they type gets encrypted with every public key (I believe this can be done so that if you encrypt by password a, b, and c, either a, b, or c can decrypt, alone) and distributed to every person in the channel. Your client decrypts with your private key. Same for private message, and then you don't have to worry about the admin sniffing because he can't. Sound workable? It would be more processor intensive, but at those transmission speeds (as fast as a human can type) that really isn't an issue even for a 386.