Windows 95, what a joke.

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by Chris Thom » Wed, 06 Sep 1995 04:00:00





> >Guess again bucko fully 80% of my Win 3.11 WGW softwre will not run.
> >on top of that it ate my Root files.

> Hmm, too bad it didn't eat your AOL software...

Could be worse.  When all the millions of people trying to set up
Windoze 95 finally get it working (unless they give up and get a
Mac, of course -which many have apparantly done(!)), we might be
in for a deluge of idiot MSN users.  Or does it not have Usenet yet?

--

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by Bruce Scott TO » Wed, 06 Sep 1995 04:00:00


: Could be worse.  When all the millions of people trying to set up
: Windoze 95 finally get it working (unless they give up and get a
: Mac, of course -which many have apparantly done(!)), we might be
: in for a deluge of idiot MSN users.  Or does it not have Usenet yet?

We will get a new wave, probably only a minor one, though, of crackpots
into sci.physics.  I've just seen one such there posting from msn.  No
big deal... the worst two of all both post from .edu sites.

--
Mach's gut!
Bruce Scott                                The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik       odorless and transparent


 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by Steven Drinovs » Thu, 07 Sep 1995 04:00:00



says...



>> Could be worse.  When all the millions of people trying to set up
>> Windoze 95 finally get it working (unless they give up and get a
>> Mac, of course -which many have apparantly done(!)), we might be
>                                                          ^^^^^
>> in for a deluge of idiot MSN users.  Or does it not have Usenet yet?

>You misspelled "will". Hope this helps.

>I figure it'll be much, much worse than AOL and Prodigy stuck together;
so
>I've pre-killfiled the whole of msn.com in advance.

>Alistair

>--
>Alistair Young - Arkane Systems Software Development & PC Consultancy
>The opinions above ARE my company's, because I OWN it!    [Team OS/2]


domains)
>If you are reading this from the Microsoft Network; you have been

killfiled.

Well, I decided to change my .sig file to reflect my opinion of
Microsoft.  If anyone knows of a better wording, or something
that will hold up in court let me know.  I would really like to
legally lock out MSN if possible.  After all, BG gets money for
every PC sold, so why can't I get money when he tries to read
or distribute my messages?

I also think something like a limited copyright of all messages
would be a lot better then something like saying
"winblows sucks!"

Anyway, just a thought,
Steven

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

+ Texas Department of Health,                      home (512) 478-0923 +
+ WIC Automation                              work (512) 458-7111x3476 +
+ My opinions are my own and by no means represent the state of Texas  +
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Copyright (C) 1995 by Steven Drinovsky.
This article may be distributed freely to any machine not owned or
funded by Microsoft.  Any distribution of this message by to above
mentioned company is in violation of this copyright and subject to
charges.  Contact Steven Drinovsky for current distribution rates.

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by Alistair J. R. Youn » Thu, 07 Sep 1995 04:00:00




Quote:> Could be worse.  When all the millions of people trying to set up
> Windoze 95 finally get it working (unless they give up and get a
> Mac, of course -which many have apparantly done(!)), we might be

                                                          ^^^^^

Quote:> in for a deluge of idiot MSN users.  Or does it not have Usenet yet?

You misspelled "will". Hope this helps.

I figure it'll be much, much worse than AOL and Prodigy stuck together; so
I've pre-killfiled the whole of msn.com in advance.

Alistair

--
Alistair Young - Arkane Systems Software Development & PC Consultancy
The opinions above ARE my company's, because I OWN it!    [Team OS/2]


If you are reading this from the Microsoft Network; you have been killfiled.

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by William Turn » Fri, 08 Sep 1995 04:00:00





>> Could be worse.  When all the millions of people trying to set up
>> Windoze 95 finally get it working (unless they give up and get a
>> Mac, of course -which many have apparantly done(!)), we might be
>                                                          ^^^^^
>> in for a deluge of idiot MSN users.  Or does it not have Usenet yet?

>You misspelled "will". Hope this helps.

>I figure it'll be much, much worse than AOL and Prodigy stuck together; so
>I've pre-killfiled the whole of msn.com in advance.

Of course, it would be an interesting exercise to ban msn.com sites
from accessing WWW pages. I suspect this would deal a much bigger blow
than killfiling them....

William

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by Joe Ragos » Fri, 08 Sep 1995 04:00:00




> Well, I decided to change my .sig file to reflect my opinion of
> Microsoft.  If anyone knows of a better wording, or something
> that will hold up in court let me know.  I would really like to
> legally lock out MSN if possible.  After all, BG gets money for
> every PC sold, so why can't I get money when he tries to read
> or distribute my messages?

An article in the WSJ yesterday about copyright restrictions on the
Internet states that current law does state that someone who distributes
copyrighted material on the Internet must honor copyrights. This could be
big trouble for MS if enough of these messages catch on.

--
Regards, Joe Ragosta -- 100% Chemical and proud of it.
Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form,
in whole or in part. Copyright, Joseph Ragosta, 1995. License to distribute
this post is available to Microsoft for $1000. Posting without permission
constitutes an agreement to these terms. Please send notices of violation

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by Michael A Zinga » Mon, 11 Sep 1995 04:00:00





>> Well, I decided to change my .sig file to reflect my opinion of
>> Microsoft.  If anyone knows of a better wording, or something
>> that will hold up in court let me know.  I would really like to
>> legally lock out MSN if possible.  After all, BG gets money for
>> every PC sold, so why can't I get money when he tries to read
>> or distribute my messages?

>An article in the WSJ yesterday about copyright restrictions on the
>Internet states that current law does state that someone who distributes
>copyrighted material on the Internet must honor copyrights. This could be
>big trouble for MS if enough of these messages catch on.
>--
>Regards, Joe Ragosta -- 100% Chemical and proud of it.
>Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form,
>in whole or in part. Copyright, Joseph Ragosta, 1995. License to distribute
>this post is available to Microsoft for $1000. Posting without permission
>constitutes an agreement to these terms. Please send notices of violation


Do you actually take the time (and money?) to copyright each and every
message you post on the internet.  Unless you actually have a true copyright
I think that the MSN will have no problems redistributing you message.  
 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by Don Beus » Tue, 12 Sep 1995 04:00:00






>>> Well, I decided to change my .sig file to reflect my opinion of
>>> Microsoft.  If anyone knows of a better wording, or something
>>> that will hold up in court let me know.  I would really like to
>>> legally lock out MSN if possible.  After all, BG gets money for
>>> every PC sold, so why can't I get money when he tries to read
>>> or distribute my messages?

>>An article in the WSJ yesterday about copyright restrictions on the
>>Internet states that current law does state that someone who distributes
>>copyrighted material on the Internet must honor copyrights. This could be
>>big trouble for MS if enough of these messages catch on.

>>--
>>Regards, Joe Ragosta -- 100% Chemical and proud of it.
>>Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form,
>>in whole or in part. Copyright, Joseph Ragosta, 1995. License to distribute
>>this post is available to Microsoft for $1000. Posting without permission
>>constitutes an agreement to these terms. Please send notices of violation

>Do you actually take the time (and money?) to copyright each and every
>message you post on the internet.  Unless you actually have a true copyright
>I think that the MSN will have no problems redistributing you message.  

Actually, Joe gives up any copyright rights he may have when *HE*, not MS,
posts the article.  MS, the messenger, is not liable, and the above copyright
notice is garbage serving no purpose other than to waste valuable bandwidth.

Regards,
Don.

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by Shawn V. Hern » Tue, 12 Sep 1995 04:00:00




> Actually, Joe gives up any copyright rights he may have when *HE*, not MS,
> posts the article.  MS, the messenger, is not liable, and the above copyright
> notice is garbage serving no purpose other than to waste valuable bandwidth.

I wasn't aware this area of the law had been settled yet. Are you a
lawyer, or just spouting off like the rest of us?

Shawn

Shawn Valentine Hernan         |
The University of Pittsburgh   | Dump the RICO Laws

412-624-6425                   |

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by Matt Simmo » Tue, 12 Sep 1995 04:00:00



: I wasn't aware this area of the law had been settled yet. Are you a
: lawyer, or just spouting off like the rest of us?
Well, Prodigy lost a case fairly recently because they were censoring the
stuff on their service, implying that those who don't censor, who just pass
all of the information through, aren't liable.

      Matt Simmons  --  Purdue University  --  West Hell, Indiana

          http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/simmonmt/index2.html
                       Speaking only for myself

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by Daniel Kian Mc Kierna » Tue, 12 Sep 1995 04:00:00



Quote:> An article in the WSJ yesterday about copyright restrictions on the
> Internet states that current law does state that someone who distributes
> copyrighted material on the Internet must honor copyrights. This could be
> big trouble for MS if enough of these messages catch on.

*sigh*

It would be one thing for =me= to enter the latest Tom Clancy novel
into a Usenet newsgroup, and entirely another were Tom Clancy to do
so.  In the first instance, I would be in violation of his
copyright; in the second, he would releasing it for distribution by
all carriers of the newsgroup, regardless of what =idiotic= notices
he might place in his signature to the effect that MS couldn't
distribute the sucker as part of its distribution of the newsgroup.

          It's always Dark.  Light only hides the Darkness.

          Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan           (619) 535 - 0546

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by Andrew Cha » Tue, 12 Sep 1995 04:00:00



>--
>Regards, Joe Ragosta -- 100% Chemical and proud of it.
>Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form,
>in whole or in part. Copyright, Joseph Ragosta, 1995. License to distribute
>this post is available to Microsoft for $1000. Posting without permission
>constitutes an agreement to these terms. Please send notices of violation


        Out of curiousity, what if I decided to bill dca.net for my
posts?  Or mit.edu?  How about panix.com?  The legality of your sig is
pretty weak- and msn.net as a Usenet provider is simply as bound by US
law as any other Usenet feed (in the US, anyways).  Imagine putting (say)
unc.edu in place of msn.net and imagine how many people would support you
then.

        What if I kept the Microsoft part as the feed which must pay, but
changed my bill to an ear of a genuine MS employee?

        What if my sig said *.com must pay?  Why not *.mil?

        Granted, I don't much like Microsoft either.  But I don't
imagine that such a weak piece of legal-sounding words could possibly
bother them.

        It does bother me that otherwise reasonable people work
themselves into such a frenzy over Microsoft.  Go bother the trilateral
commission or something.

                                                Andrew.

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by Edward Ri » Wed, 13 Sep 1995 04:00:00



  > A good method of copyrighting your work is to seal it up tight in
  > an envelope and mail it to yourself.  If you need to prove copyright
  > in a court of law the sealed envelope (which will be franked by the
postal
  > serice with the date) is sufficient to prove you had the work on a
specific
  > date.
  >
  > Thus, the above copyright notice is perfectly valid, and I suspect
could
  > be used successfully in any law court.
  >
  > -FISH-   ><>

"FISH" as in trolling?  The method is defective, as well as unnecessary.
Want proof?

 
 
 

Windows 95, what a joke.

Post by S.E. Morr » Wed, 13 Sep 1995 04:00:00





> writes:



> >> Well, I decided to change my .sig file to reflect my opinion of
> >> Microsoft.  If anyone knows of a better wording, or something
> >> that will hold up in court let me know.  I would really like to
> >> legally lock out MSN if possible.  After all, BG gets money for
> >> every PC sold, so why can't I get money when he tries to read
> >> or distribute my messages?

> >An article in the WSJ yesterday about copyright restrictions on the
> >Internet states that current law does state that someone who distributes
> >copyrighted material on the Internet must honor copyrights. This could be
> >big trouble for MS if enough of these messages catch on.

> >--
> >Regards, Joe Ragosta -- 100% Chemical and proud of it.
> >Microsoft Network is prohibited from redistributing this work in any form,
> >in whole or in part. Copyright, Joseph Ragosta, 1995. License to distribute
> >this post is available to Microsoft for $1000. Posting without permission
> >constitutes an agreement to these terms. Please send notices of violation

> Do you actually take the time (and money?) to copyright each and every
> message you post on the internet.  Unless you actually have a true copyright
> I think that the MSN will have no problems redistributing you message.  

It doesn't cost anything to copyright.  Copyright relies only on
the person(s) claiming copyright to prove that they were there first.

A clear and visible message to the effect that the work is copyright
is also advisable (but I don't think necessary!).

A good method of copyrighting your work is to seal it up tight in
an envelope and mail it to yourself.  If you need to prove copyright
in a court of law the sealed envelope (which will be franked by the postal
serice with the date) is sufficient to prove you had the work on a specific
date.

Thus, the above copyright notice is perfectly valid, and I suspect could
be used successfully in any law court.

-FISH-   ><>

 
 
 

1. X/X Windows (was Re: Windows 95, what a joke.)

   >There is no such thing as X Windows.

   I can't resist.  Yes there is!  It's a GUI for UNIX systems
   which is quite handy.  I'm using it now.  All my windows
   even have little "x"s in the close boxes.

Ouch. Now I can't resist. There is no X Windows. What you are using
(assuming I've got this right, I never could stay awake in UNIX
worshipping, sorry, appreciation class) is a protocol called X for
sending window-system-stuff between different machines (or between the
same machine), a window manager (which may be called anything -
resource-hogging bastard is quite good), and a window manager called
something ending in wm (fvwm, twm, olwm, olvwm, etc.). All three of
these together are called X Windows by people who either don't know
any better (45% of people who use it), and by people who don't care
that pedants think they're wrong, because common usage says they're
right (another 45%, including me). However,
pedants still insist that there is no X Windows.

Hope this helps,

Alistair
--
Alistair Young - Arkane Systems Software Development & PC Consultancy
The opinions above are my company's, because I OWN it! [Team OS/2]

Support the rmgrouping of all silly, unused, or duplicated alt.* groups!

2. Will 3 or 4 or more NICs confuse natd?

3. X-Windows (Was - Re: Windows 95, what a joke)

4. partition layout

5. Windows 95, what a joke.

6. What happened to cvsup-bin-16.1????

7. Windows 95, what a joke

8. modems

9. 1Re: Windows 95, what a joke

10. Windows 95, what a joke

11. Windows 95, what a joke.

12. Windows 95, what a joke