OMG!!!!!

al wrote:
|| "R D S" wrote in message
|| news:bv1atl$mupoe$1@ID-
||| So will we send an end to famine before much longer do you think?
||| Thanks to Bill Gates?
||| Makes me wonder why i still see the Oxfam 'please give £(x)/month
||| adverts on TV since Microsoft are harvesting such a massive amount
||| of money for good causes.
|||
||
|| Look .. you can grumble all you like, but he gives far more than
|| almost anyone else. He's not responsible for ending world famine -
|| we all are! What exactly would it take for him to be "just" in your
|| eyes? Give every penny he owns? What exactly do *you* do?
||
||
||
|| a

Im not getting a Knighthood,
but for what ts worth i give montly to NSPCC

Steve wrote:
|| "R D S" wrote in
|| :
||
||| Steve wrote:
||||| "R D S" wrote in
||||| :
|||||
|||||| Parish wrote:
|||||||| Now we know for certain that this country has gone stark
|||||||| staring mad......
||||||||
|||||||| http://tinyurl.com/2teet
||||||||
|||||||| Time to buy that delapidated farmhouse in France methinks.
||||||
|||||| Unbelievable.
|||||| This country seems to love to celebrate sportspersons and greedy
|||||| capitalist monopolising money hoarders.
|||||
||||| Actually Gates plans to give most of his money away.
|||||
||||| http://society.guardian.co.uk/charit...150,1049184,00.
||||| html
|||||
||||| The main problem with this country is small minded knee jerk
||||| reactions to headlines without bothering with small details like
||||| facts; the article posted reported his donations had you got
||||| managed to get past the headline.
|||
||| So WTF doesnt he give some away now? Im sure he has plenty.
||
|| Wow, what was I saying about not knee jerk reactions and not reading
|| the details. Did you even read the first sentence in that link?
||
|| "This week, Bill Gates gave £100m to fight malaria in Africa, the
|| latest charitable donation from the billionaire geek who has pledged
|| to give away his £28bn fortune before he dies"
||
||
||| Why isnt Windows half price, why cant i sell my old OEM's, why did
||| he use underhanded tactics from day one to become the richest
||| person in the cosmos? When win 98 was ****e why did we still have
||| to pay for SE? Why can I not use my copy of Office on more than one
||| machine?
||| If he is making so much money and intends to give it away then what
||| is he doing? Showboating his monopoly?
||
|| BTW, noone forced you to buy his products.

I apologise, i didnt read the link. Im clinging to my view bigot style.

But on your point of not being forced to buy his products i have to differ,
he has kept up the monopoly for so long now that its not really practical to
operate in a non MS fashion.

Previously in uk.comp.vendors, R D S said:
But on your point of not being forced to buy his products i have to differ,
he has kept up the monopoly for so long now that its not really practical to
operate in a non MS fashion.

My Mac OS X, OpenOffice, Linux, Mozilla, Evolution, Samba, MySQL and
Apache infested office beg to differ on that last point. Microsoft
products are in a distinct minority in this room.

Richard Gaywood wrote:
|| Previously in uk.comp.vendors, R D S said:
||| But on your point of not being forced to buy his products i have to
||| differ, he has kept up the monopoly for so long now that its not
||| really practical to operate in a non MS fashion.
||
|| My Mac OS X, OpenOffice, Linux, Mozilla, Evolution, Samba, MySQL and
|| Apache infested office beg to differ on that last point. Microsoft
|| products are in a distinct minority in this room.

I take it all back.

For you..
MS products are not necessary.

And for Steve..
Bill Gates is a god!

Thanks
Rick

Im off now to learn how to do Linux or Unix or something and do more work
for charity.

al wrote:

"Peter Hayes" wrote in message
news:1g86602.j83gcfri2s09N%
And how many billions have been lost by organisations and individuals
through Microsoft's insecure software?


Just as many as if Linux/Netscape were the market leaders and the hoards of
morons got a hold of them instead of Windows (I mention Netscape because if
MS had not succeeded it would be the leading browser, not because it means
anything today, even it Mozilla form) ... or if God forbid crappy Macs were
in the same place!

Linux and OS X have at least some safeguards against idiots clicking on
executables, firstly the user will likely have to chmod +x if
permissions allow, then the malware will only affect their own files and
not corrupt other users and system files. Unless they're daft enough to
do it as root when they'll get all they deserve.

Unfortunately, most Windows users are root all the time, hence all the
problems that surround that platform.

--

Peter

"R D S" wrote in message news:bv3qep$nfd0g$1@ID-

Im not getting a Knighthood,
but for what ts worth i give montly to NSPCC


Well yes, and for all I know you may give more as a percentage of earnings.
But let's not discourage the people that can make a real difference - on an
individual basis - from doing so! It's unfortunately unusual behaviour
amongst the rich to support charities in any serious way. Many like to be
seen to give while doing sweet FA in reality.



a

"Peter Hayes" wrote in message
news:1g86xug.17157ht18c1y0tN%
Unfortunately, most Windows users are root all the time, hence all the
problems that surround that platform.


And Linux wouldn't be if it were mass market? In fact, aren't some distro's
already default root when shipped? As for Macs ... so are they! And
they're a poor *******isation of a great OS anyway! ;P



a

Steve wrote:

Parish wrote in
:

Steve wrote:

"R D S" wrote in
:

Parish wrote:
|| Now we know for certain that this country has gone stark staring
|| mad......
||
|| http://tinyurl.com/2teet
||
|| Time to buy that delapidated farmhouse in France methinks.

Unbeleivable.
This country seems to love to celebrate sportspersons and greedy
capitalist monopolising money hoarders.

Actually Gates plans to give most of his money away.

http://society.guardian.co.uk/charit...0,1049184,00.h
tml

The main problem with this country is small minded knee jerk
reactions to headlines without bothering with small details like
facts; the article posted reported his donations had you got managed
to get past the headline.


Go back and read the article again;

Go back and read this thread again and see that I was replying to:

"This country seems to love to celebrate sportspersons and greedy
capitalist monopolising money hoarders."


Ah, right, so you were. Sorry 'bout that, my bad.


the fact that he plans to give
most of his money away, or the donations he has made, is irrelevant in
this context - unlike,

In that context, it is.

for example, Sir[1] John Paul Getty II an
American who was given an honary knighthood for giving away vast
amounts of his money - he is getting the award for "services to global
enterprise".

I am fully aware that the knighthood is not for his philanphropy.

al wrote:

"Peter Hayes" wrote in message
news:1g86xug.17157ht18c1y0tN%
Unfortunately, most Windows users are root all the time, hence all the
problems that surround that platform.


And Linux wouldn't be if it were mass market?

The difference is that most Windows users don't have any option to run
as anything other than root.

In fact, aren't some distro's already default root when shipped?

I believe it was Lindows that did this stupid thing, but all the
mainstream distros include a user setup page as part of the installation
dialogue. If I log in as root on my SuSE 8.2 installation I get a bright
red background with "bombs" which helps to remind me of the dangers in
runing as root.

As for Macs ... so are they!

When I do something like install an app I'm asked for the root password,
and that's how it should be.

And they're a poor *******isation of a great OS anyway! ;P

I take it you don't like OS X?

OS9 and its predecessors were little better than Win3.1, better
interface perhaps, but suffered from CMT, memory allocation problems
till the end, DOS-5 was better...

Still, it's gone now. good riddance, IMHO of course...

--

Peter

Previously in uk.comp.vendors, Peter Hayes said:
Linux and OS X have at least some safeguards against idiots clicking on
executables, firstly the user will likely have to chmod +x if
permissions allow, then the malware will only affect their own files and
not corrupt other users and system files. Unless they're daft enough to
do it as root when they'll get all they deserve.

I hear this argument a lot and I don't actually give it any credence. If
I got a virus that blew away /home/rich, I'd be devestated; by
definition, almost all of the files that I care about are under there,
and I have write permissions to them when running as myself. True, other
people's files would be safe, but that doesn't bring my files back...
and true, everything under /usr would be safe, but I could apt-get that
back at any moment anyway.

--
"Deserves death! Ah, I daresay he does. Many that live deserve | -=R=-
death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give that to them? |web: http://
Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, |fscked.co.uk
fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends." |icq:66545073